■%• 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

%p!v . Sopt|ng!|t l;?- - 
Slielf .H"^ 

UNITED STATES OE AMERICA. 







■^v/ 



-.^i 



V, 





<f^? 



5- 



CHRISTIAN BAPTISM 



AOTIOI<r AND SXJB.TEOT 



BY 



JOHN G. FEE. 




C I N c I isr N A T I : 
PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR 

HITCHCOCK & WALDEN, PRINT. 



1878 







Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1878, by 

JOHN G. FEE, 
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 



PEEFATOEY NOTES. 



HHHE leading thoughts in the following 
chapters were published in the Witness^ 
a weekly journal, in 1860. They were after- 
ward revised, and published in the Christian 
Standard^ in 1874. 

Now again revised, remodeled, and en- 
larged, they appear in book form. The 
reader may ask. Why another book on this 
much controverted subject, Christian Bap- 
tism? We reply : 

1. The very fact that it is yet a contro- 
verted subject, shows the necessity of at 
least another effort to get the light, the truth. 

2. We need such a presentation of the 

subject as will meet the issues of the present 
day. 

3. The writer was educated under pedo- 
baptist teaching, was ^'sprinkled." After 



4 PREFATORY NOTES. 

some years of labor in the Gospel ministry 
and continued examination of the subject of 
baptism^ he became convinced that it was his 
duty to be baptized, and accordingly was. 
He has hope that the train of thought that 
brought light to his mind may bring light to 
the minds of others. 

4. It will be convenient to have, in con- 
secutive form, an exposition of each Scripture 

text involving the subject, and reference to 
each made easy. 

5. The writer has long desired to have a 
book in harmony with his own views, that he 
could put into the hands of students in our 
colleges and seminaries — a book, too, that will 
aid them somewhat in the study of the origi- 
nal text. For the special benefit of this class 
of readers, the writer has multiplied quota- 
tions and authorities, as he would not other- 
wise have done. 

6. Contrary to taste and feeling, the writer 
has frequently introduced names of authors of 



PREFATORY NOTES. 



opposite views; only for directness, that the 
view may be seen as real^ not imaginary. 

7. The writer has the belief that baptism, 
as enjoined by Heaven, and practiced by the 
apostles, was representative of great and im- 
portant facts in the Gospel, and that these 
representations ought to be maintained, even 
at the cost of many volumes. 

8. Whilst it is true that a new creation in 
Christ Jesus is the vital thing in Christianity, 
yet it is also true that every departure from 
the revealed plan of manifesting this new na- 
ture brings confusion, schism, and weakness. 
To remove these departures is to promote 
truth, unity and efficiency. 

AUTHOE. 
Berea, Ky., 1878. 



COIsTTEI^TS 



CHAPTBE I. 

MEAl^ING OF THE WORD. 

Baptizo not Translated — Bapto and Baptizo — Classic 
Use — Positive La^Y Demands a Specific Word.... Pages 9-22 

CHAPTBE II. 

WASH. 

Consequent Meanings — Vfash Generic — Baptizo puts 
Within — Ceremonial Import 23-33 

CHAPTEE III. 

PURIFY. 

Effect not a Rite — Purify not the Meaning — Descrip- 
tive Transaction — Import of a Rite — Xot mere Symbol of 
Purification — Summing up of Imports — Professor Payne's 
^'Essense of the Sign" — John Calvin's Liberty — Moses 
Stuart's ]Manner of the Rite 34-49 

CHAPTEE IV. 

e:n^ a:n'd eis. 

Eis=into — Our Lord Immersed — Into relation — Into 
Remission of Sins — Prepositions Flexible — B. U. Wat- 
kins on Heaton — En Locative — Within — En and Simple 
Dative 50-67 

CHAPTEE V. 

FIGURATIVE USE. 

Analogy, Force, Vividness — Baptism of the Spirit — 
Baptism in Fire — Baptism an Antitype — " Saves"... 68-8 2 



8 CONTENTS. 

. CHAPTEE VI. 

RELIGIOUS USE. 

Not Different from Classical or Common — Manner of 
Bathing — Jewish Usage — Marfe vii, 3, 4 — Cups and Beds — 
Luke xi, 38, Bathing before Meals — Heb. ix, 10, '^ Divers 
Washings"— Proselyte Baptism—'' Sprinkling" 83-113 

CHAPTEE YIL 

ATTEISTDANT. DESCRIPTIONS. 

Baptized unto Moses — Buried by Baptism — Baptized 
into Christ and into his Death — Symbol of Eesurrection — 
Why Tenacious for Form — ''Baptized for the Dead" — 
Tombs, Graves 114-142 

CHAPTEE VIII. 

PERSONAL BAPTISMS. 

John's Baptism — Baptism of our Lord — The Three 
Thousand — Bodies of water — Philip and tlie Eunuch — 
Baptism of Paul — House of Cornelius — The Philippian 
Jailer — The Change — Papal — Cal vin's Liturgy — Legal 
Force 143-169 

CHAPTEE IX. 

SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

Infant Training — Christ Blessing Children — The Two 
Covenants — " Your Children " — " Federally Holy " — 
" Jewish Church " — " Abraham's Seed" — One Seed — 
Christ — Household Baptism — Positive Considerations 
Against — Nature of the Kingdom — Repentance, Faith, 
New Birth — Design of Baptism — Supplants Personal 
Duty— Blends Church and the World 170-196 



Christian B 



HRISTIAN JDAPTISM. 



Chapter I. 

EVERY penitent soul desires to obey and 
please the Lord Jesus in all things ; and 
when he reads the divine comniission, ^^ Go, 
disciple all nations, baptizing them/' or the 
words of Peter, '^ Repent and be baptized/' he 
very naturally inquires. What did our Lord 
and Peter enjoin by the use of the word bap- 
tize? That they enjoined something more 
than a mere passive state — a baptism of the 
Holy Spirit — is clear; for the baptism of the 
Holy Spirit was an'-enduement from on high" 
(Luke xxiv, 49), a something which the Lord 
Jesus was to administer; but that wdiich our 
Lord enjoined upon his disciples was some- 
thing man was to perform. Also this baptism 
was in water. (Mark i, 5; Acts viii, 38.) 
Our translation sometimes has it^wdth wa- 
ter." (Matt, iii, 11.) The question then 

2 



10 WHY THE CONTROVERSY. 

arises. Did our Lord enjoin a definite transac- 
tion in water, an immersion ? or did he enjoin a 
washing in any convenient manner ? or did he 
enjoin simply the " effect" of any use of water, 
the effect of immersing, sprinkling, or pouring, 
and use the word in the 2:eneric sense, ^Ho 
cleanse," ^Ho purify?" These are the ques- 
tions now to be answered. Dr. Edward 
Beecher is free to concede that the Greek 
word haptizo does not mean to ^' use water in 
any wayT He insists that, ^^as used in the 
New Testament, the word has a clear and 
well-defined meaning. Whilst in different cir- 
cumstances and applied to different objects, it 
may mean different things, yet, when used as 
a religious term and applied to the rite of bap- 
tism, it must always mean the same thing." 

What, then, does the word mean ? Over this 
there has been much controversy. The English 
reader will ask, Why this controversy? Why 
should we not understand the duty enjoined 
in the ordinance of baptism as clearly and as 
definitely as in the ordinance of the Lord's- 
supper? We answer, one reason is, the Greek 
word haptizo was not in our version trans- 



WHY THE CONTROVERSY. 11 

lated. Whilst the original words, esthio^ to 
eat, and pino^ to drink, as used in the institu- 
tion of the Lord's-supper, were translated^ and 
we have tlie words " eat/' " drink," designat- 
ing definite, specific acts, the original word 
haptizo was not translated. The translators 
simply transferred the original word from the 
Greek language into our language, with an 
English termination affixed ; and, so far as 
this word is concerned, the meaning of this 
word has now to be ascertained — ascertained 
as though no translation had been made. The 
truth of this statement is notorious and freely 
conceded. 

Dr. Edward Beecher, in his work on Bap- 
tism, says : '^At the time of the translation of 
the Bible, a controversy had arisen in regard 
to the import of the word, so that, although 
it was conceded to have an import in the 
original, yet it was impossible to assign to it 
in English any meaning without seeming to 
take sides in the controversy then pending.* 
Accordingly, in order to take neither side, 



See conclusion, Chapter viii. 



12 MEANING OF THE WORD. 

they did not attempt to give the sense of the 
term in a significant English word, but merely 
transferred the word haptizo with a slight al- 
teration of termination." 

King James, in his instructions to the 
translators, gave the following as the third 
rule : " The old ecclesiastical words to be 
kept; as the word Church, not to be trans- 
lated congregation." In the address of the 
translators, they state that baptize was one of 
these old ecclesiastical words not to be trans- 
lated. 

We must now either translate or give to 
the word as it now stands a fixed meaning. 
We prefer the latter, for the word now is used 
with an appropriated signification, like the 
word angel, Church, Sabbath. 

MEANING OF THE WORD. 

The Greek word haptizo is a derivative 
from the word hapto^ and means '' to dip, to 
plunge, to immerse." " Of this," says Moses 
Stuart, ^^all lexicographers and critics of any 
note are agreed;" i. ^., as to its classical 
meaning. 



BAPTO. 13 

Stuart makes this just remark : " That, 
whilst hapto sometimes means to stain, to color, 
baptizo is not so used — has no such meaning ; 
also that haptizo is used to designate the Chris- 
tian ordinance, whilst hapto is never so used." 

Bapto is often used to designate a partial 
dipping, as in Lev. xiv, 15, 16: ^^ Dip the 
finger," — tip of it — in oil, for there was only 
so much as was in the palm of the hand. Also, 
1 Sam. xiv, 27: ^^ Dip the end of the staff in 
a honey-comb " — honey-comb lying on the 
ground. See also Lev. xiv, 2-7, where the 
word is used to designate partial dipping of a 
bird in the blood of another bird, which other 
bird was killed in a vessel containing {inayim 
haywi) " living^'' '^ running " water ; that is, fresh 
water, in contradistinction from stagnant wa- 
ter. " The bird, bound to a stick of cedar- 
wood by the scarlet wool or fillet, was dipped, 
(that is, the tail) into the blood, and the blood 
then and thus sprinkled." (See Bush's Notes 
on Lev. xiv, 2-7.) 

Bishop Merrill, in his late book on baptism, 
assumes that as the immersion of the whole 
living bird in the blood of the slain bird was 



14 BAPTO. 

an impossibility, that therefore the word lapio 
must mean "smear," and is used in a generic 
sense^ and thus fixes the generic import of 
haptizo^ which is derived from bapto. 

The Bishop, in the immediate context, in- 
sensibly concedes the true import of the word 
when he adds : " The dipping was for the pur- 
pose of smearing preparatory to the sprinkling 
upon the person to be cleansed." (Page 183.) 
Dip^ in his own apprehension, is the very word 
to express the action^ and smear is a word 
which he interposes to express the result of 
the action, but is not a proper meaning for the 
word when the word is used to designate ac- 
tion. The word is so used in the text. 

The Bishop also refers to bapto as used in 
Dan. iv, 33, and retains the translation " wet." 
He says : " The dew of heaven fell gently, and 
wet his body. That is all." This was doubt- 
less well meant by the Bishop, but it falls far 
short of ftiithfulness. 

1. As Ave are informed, dews, where Nebu- 
chadnezzar was, fell not gently, but most pro- 
fusely, almost like rain; and this was the occa- 
sion of the metaphor, the word being used as 



BAPTO. 15 

we often do the word duck, when, after passing 
through a heavy shower, w^e say, '^ I caught 
a complete ducking," the action put for the 
drenching effect the action produces. Milton, 
referring to the event, expresses the figure 
more beautifully when he makes Nebuchadnez- 
zar exclaim : 

''A cold, sbuddering dew 
Dips me all over." 

Surely, the Bishop does not mean to say, the 
figurative use of a word ^^ forever" settles its 
import when used in a plain command — used 
not to designate the mere result of an action, 
but the action itself. 

2. " Wet " is not an inspired translation ; — 
submerged, his body submerged, drenched 
with the dews of heaven, would be far more 
in harmony with the facts in the case and 
the well-known import of the word, which is 
to put within, rather than sprinkle upon. But, 
as w^e have said, hapto is not synonymous 
W\i\\J)aptizo, ^ 

BAPTIZO. 

This difi^ers from hapto ^ not only as to the 
objects to which it is often applied, as the 



16 BAPTIZO. 

Christian rite, but also in that it is more spe- 
cific^ designates a complete immersion. This 
is indicated by the termination izo^ which, as 
Jelf and Stuart show, is intensive, completive 
rather than frequentative. 

Bretschneider says : '''An entire immersion 
belongs to the nature of baptism. This is 
the meaning of the word, for in hapiizo is con- 
tained the idea of a complete immersion under 
water, at least so is haptisma in the New Testa- 
ment." 

Calvin says : " The term baptize means to 
immerse entirely^ and it is certain that the 
custom of thus entirely immersing was an- 
ciently observed in the Church." 

Cremer, in his Biblico-theological Lexicon 
of New Testament Greek, says: '^Baptizo 
means immerse^ submerged 

When Bishop Merrill affirms ^^ that, as hap- 
tizo is a derivative of hapto^ it can not be 
more specific," he simply aflfirnis against au- 
thorities and facts. 

We present a few examples of the use of 
the word, examples in which the English 
reader, from the connection in which the 



CLASSICAL USE. 17 

word is used, will be able to determine the 
import of the word as certainly as any classi- 
cal scholar. The examples are from authors 
whose works and lives were contemporaneous 
with Christ and the apostles. They used 
what is termed Alexandrian Greek, lived in 
a time when it is claimed the word had under- 
gone a change in import. The examples also 
will show that the word haptizo is a word of 
action, and that the word also may designate 
action into a flnid or object, with or without a 
preposition. Take the following, selected 
from Baptizein by Conant : 

Strabo, speaking of a dart hurled down 
from above into the channel, says : ^^ The 
force of the water makes so much resistance 
that it is {ibazz fiohc ^anrcC^a&ac) immersed 
with difficulty." No preposition after hap- 
tizesthai, 

Plutarch, describing a scene of revelry, 
says : 01 GxpaxiMxac ^aiixi^ovTtq, ix Tnd^oji^ fj.eyd2wi^, 
" The soldiers dipping from great casks." No 
preposition follows haptizontes ; the word itself 
expresses dipping, immersing, specific action. 

Josephus, speaking of the drowning of 



18 CLASSICAL USE. 

Aristobutus, says : " They kept pressing him 
down as he was swimming, and (^«7rr^^ovr£c) 
immersing him as if in sport, until he was 
drowned." No preposition follows, and the 
context shows that the purpose was to drown 
by immersing. 

Diodorus, speaking of land animals within 
the banks of the Nile, says : '^ The river, borne 
along by a more violent torrent, (ij^aTzuC^) 
overwhelmed many." 

Strabo, speaking of a certain lake, says : 
" The water solidifies so readily around every 
thing that i^ {^anvcadevrc) immersed in it, that 
they draw up salt crowns when they let down 
a circle of rushes." 

Stuart has collated more than a hundred 
examples of the use of the word, showing 
that the word means immerse. I present one, 
and as he translates : " The boy was sent to 
Jericho, and there, (baptizomenos en kolumhe- 
thro) being immersed in a pool, he perished." 

He gives other examples of literal and 
figurative overwhelming, as : " When midnight 
(ebaptizon) has overwhelmed the city with 
sleep." Again : ^^ The soul is nourished by 



SPECIFIC SENSE OF. 19 

moderate labors, but is (baptizetai) over- 
whelmed by excessive ones." 

The word then is a word of motion, and is 
specific in the sqw^q o^ putting within ; and the 
words dip, immerse, submerge, overwhelm, 
may represent this idea. We sometimes use 
submerge, both actively and passively, espec- 
ially the latter when the enveloping medium 
is conceived as coming upon in overwhelming 
force, as an overflowing tide, or the Holy 
Spirit; but in either case the action puts 
within^ and in this sense is specific, and 
is totally dissimilar to pour or sprinkle 
upon. 

Dr. Edward Beecher freely concedes that 
in the classics and common use among the 
Greeks (and we may add as used by Josephus, 
who wrote in Greek and in the time of the 
writers of the New Testament), the word bap- 
tizo was used in the sense of immerse, sub- 
merge (page 9), but claims that, as used in 
the New Testament, the word is used in a 
generic sense, and means '^ purify," etc. 

For the present, let us simply say this can 
not be, for in the institution of a positive law 



20 POSITIVE LAW. 

or ordinance the use of a specific word or phrase 
is a necessity. 

Most persons do not discriminate between 
a positive hxw and a moral hiw. A moral 
law is a law that enjoins a natural duty; as 
not to steal, not to lie, not to kill. Such 
is our relation to God and to our fellow- 
men that these are duties to be observed even 
if there be no law or command enjoining 
them. Not so in reference to those things en- 
joined \)y positive laAv, as the offering of bloody 
sacrifices, circumcision, baptism, and the 
Lord's-supper. Our relation to society does 
not demand the observance of these. The 
duty to observe these grows out of the posi- 
tive law of God, the fact that he has enjoined 
them, and these positive duties are enjoined 
by specific words or by phrases describing a 
specific transaction. 

Take as an illustration the Lord's-supper. 
Here we have in the original, esthio^ to eat, and 
pino^ to drink; words designating specific acts; 
and all Protestants insist that the words must 
be construed literally, not so as to indicate 
some resultant or tropical meaning, but used 



POSITIVE LAW. ^ 21 

in the sense which the words indicate when 
used to designate action ; for a rite is a '^ trans- 
action^ a religious performance." (Webster.) 

For Bishop Merrill or any other man to 
talk about the institution of a positive rite, by 
the use of a generic word^ a word that simply 
^^ expresses the act of administration without 
determining the mode/' is absurd; for with 
such a command, with such a word, we should 
not know w^hat to do. Suppose our Lord, 
wath the purpose to institute the Supper, had 
said, " Go, commune." A command would 
have been given, but no rite instituted. Sup- 
pose he had even said, ^^Use bread and wine," 
still the query would have arisen, " How use 
bread? — offer it?" "How use wine? — pour it 
out ? — sprinkle it ? — how T Plainly, there was 
a necessity that a specific word be used, a spe- 
cific act designated, and this is just what we 
have. "Eat bread," "c?rmX^ wine," — "do this 
in remembrance of me." So was circumcis- 
ion — a specific transaction ; so is baptism — a 
specific act enjoined by a specific word. 

Again, let us consider the command as 
carried to the Grentile nations; to those unac- 



22 CONSEQUENT MEANINGS. 

quainted .with Jewish customs. They would 
need a word indicating to them at once the 
specific action to be performed ; most of them 
would have no opportunity to go elsewhere to 
learn the ^'mode of the act of administration." 
We may add^ the fact that to a word conse- 
quent meanings may be attached, is no evi- 
dence that it is not specific. Take our word 
immerse. Webster gives as meanings for 
immerse, to " dip/' to " bury/' to " involve/' 
to ^^hide/' ^^as when one star passes behind 
another." (See his Counting-house Dictionary 
and his Unabridged.) Now, if the command 
in English was, '' Go, immerse," would you 
say that it is enough to ^'^ involve" the peni- 
tent in any way, or to ^^hide" in any way, 
even behind a body of tvater ? 

No, you would insist that the word is 
specific ; and when used to designate a ^^rite, 
A, religious performance," we must use the 
word, not in^a resultant or tropical sense, but 
in the sense in which it is used when em- 
ployed to designate action. 



WASH. 23 



Chapter II. 

"WASH." 

SOME persons assume that '^ wash " is a 
proper meaning for baptizo^ and pour so 
much water on the heads of penitents as will 
produce a local washing or wetting, and claim 
that thus they do the thing enjoined by our 
Lord. We reply: 

1. When men propose to observe a rite — 
obey a positive command — they should per- 
form the action which the word used to desig- 
nate the action designates, when applied to 
action. The only action which such adminis- 
trators perform is that of pouring — not wash- 
ing. But baptizo never means pour. All that 
can be claimed for such pouring is that wash- 
ing may be a result ; but 

2. Resultant or consequent meanings are 
not proper meanings for a word when used to 
desifrnate action. Dictionaries often ^ive con- 
sequent and figurative meanings to words, 
which meanings are not designed to be exact 



24 RESULTANT MEANINGS. 

expressions of what the word means when 
applied to action — meanings, too, which do not 
give the mind of the lawgiver in giving a 
positive command. Take, as illustrations, the 
words " wet" and '^moisten." These are given 
by Webster as meanings for the word dip. If 
dip in English were used to designate a rite, 
a positive command, and we were called upon 
to give a meaning to the word as designating 
the action of the rite, would we give ^Svet " 
or '^moisten" as the proper meaning? No, 
we would say the proper meaning for the 
word in such case is immerse — plunge into; 
usually with the purpose to take out again. 

Again, ''Ho wash," ^Ho wet," are given by 
Dr. Johnson as meanings for the word sprinkle. 
If sprinkle in English, or rantizo in Greek^ 
were used to designate the action of a rite, 
would we give ^^ wet" or "- wash" as proper 
meanings ? — would we not say the word, in 
such use, always has one definite meaning? 
and that is, to scatter in paTticles. 

Again, if in the institution of a rite we 
had the command, "go sprinkle," and one of 
the meanings for sprinkle beings as now given, 



CAUSE OF CONFUSION. 25 

"to name^'' would we conclude that to name 
the child would be sufficient, without scatter- 
ing water in particles on it? No^ we would 
say that in the institution of a rite we must 
use the word not in a mere tropical sense — 
to designate the import of the rite — but in the 
sense in which the word is used when used to 
designate the action of the rite. 

We may here remark, the simple fact that 
to haptizo m^ry be attached a consequent mean- 
ing, as '' wet" — and to the same word may be 
attached a tropical meaning, as consecrate — 
the import of the rite, is no evidence that the 
word should be regarded as generic; nor that 
the consequent, or tropical meaning should be 
regarded as a proper meaning for the word 
when used to designate action. Failure to 
make these discriminations is the cause of al- 
most all the confusion on the subject of bap- 
tism. Dr. Johnson correctly said, " we should 
. discriminate between the primitive or natural 
meaning of a word and its consequential mean- 
ing." Richardson says : '' Many connect with 
a word the mea,ning of other words in a, sen- 
tence, and thus interpret the import of the 



26 WASH ACTIVELY. 

context." Tholuck says : "It is one thing to 
give a word its true meaning, and quite another 
to give the one it borrows from the context." 
This is the error of Rev.. J. E. Heaton in his 
Lite pamphlet — he takes the consequence of 
the act " drown/' " kill," as the meaning of 
the word, instead of the action which the word 
indicates. This is the oversight in forty of his 
examples. 

3. It may be said, we use " wash " not in 
a resultant sense, but actively, as when we 
bathe, w^ash the body. We reply, (a) The^ 
word in Greek (the language in which the New 
Testament was written) by which to express 
such action is loiio, not baptwo. The Greek 
language has four distinct Avords to designate 
four distinct acts: Louo, to bathe, to wash; 
rantizo^ to sprinkle ; cheo^ to pour; and baptizo^ 
to immerse. If our Lord or his apostles had 
intended to convey the idea of using water in 
any way, is it at all probable that they would 
have selected a specific Avord, the word baptizo^ 
a word then in daily use, to express the action 
immerse — submerge ? 

Also, Avash is generic, like wet. You may 



WASH ALL OVER. 27 

wet by sprinkling on water or by pouring no 
water or by immersing in water, — in various 
ways. So you may wash, by thrusting through 
water, pouring on and rubbing, putting in water 
and rubbing. Wash is generic, and as such is 
not the synonym or equal of baptizOj Avhich 
is specific. 

4. Wash^ in English, like loiio^ in Greek, and 
rahaiz^ in Hebrew, is used to express the ac- 
tion of covering all over, the person or part 
washed. Thus is louo^ in Greek. Robinson 
defines : '^ To bathe, to wash, — irans^ spoken 
only of persons." Trench says, '^ niptein and 
nipsasthai almost always express washing of a 
part of the body, as hands, Mark vii, 4 ; feet, 
John xiii, 5 ; while louein^ which is not so much 
to wash as to bathe, and louesthai^ to bathe one's 
self, imply always, not the bathing of a part 
of the body but the whole." This is true un- 
less the part is specified ; so of wash in En- 
glish. If you wash hands you cover them ; if 
you wash persons you cover them. If, then, 
your commission is ^^ Go wash them" (the 
penitents of all nations), you should cover 
them " with" or in water. If it be said we 



28 WASH ATTRITION. 

often use the word elliptically, and say " wash" 
when we mean only a part of the body^ as 
hands or face, we reply, There is no evidence 
that our Lord or the apostles used the word in 
any such elliptical sense — performed any such 
partial washings. They would not have needed 
to go into rivers and bodies of water to do so; 
and the word to express such partial washing, 
is not baptizo^ but nipto ; and you may not use 
partial washing for that which is enjoined by 
haptizo ; which, as is shown, designates com- 
plete immersion, and not " putting a little 
water on the head." 

5. Again: ^' Wash "implies attrition; hence 
Webster defines, ^Ho scrub, or cleanse with 
water." Whilst this is true of wash in English, 
it is not true of haptizo in Greek, nor of tabal 
in Hebrew. The import of haptizo is that of 
putting a person or ihiug within some substance 
or medium, so as to attain what is termed 
" intusposition ;" hence the meaning, " to dip," 
" to immerse," " to submerge," " overwhelm." 
Moses Stuart, in his work on Christian bap- 
tism, has collated from the classics and the 
Fathers more than a hundred examples of the 



MEANING PUT WITHIN. 29 

use of hapto and haptizo ; and out of all he 
finds but one instance where he can attach the 
meaning wash^ and that to hapto^ — not haptizo ; 
and this same Avord hapto^m the same sentence, 
in another part of his book, he transhites dip^ 
and gives pluno as its synonym. In all other 
instances he gives "dip/ "plunge/' "'im- 
merse/' "'submerge/' "overwhelm" as the 
meanings of the words. He shows that hapto 
sometimes indicates partial dipping, as a staff, 
the end of the staff in honey — dipping goods 
in dye-stuff to color them— the finger in oil or 
blood so as to scatter in particles — dipping 
shields in blood to confirm covenants — dip- 
ping water from the sea. He shows that 
haptizo is used to designate the immersion of 
men or vessels in the sea or river so as to 
drown them — used to designate the action of 
plunging hot iron into water to cool it — used 
passively to express submerge, overwhelm, as 
with a flood, or care, or Holy Spirit. 

Now let the reader note that cool, warm, 
color or stain, drown or confirm, are not given 
as meanings. They are not the import of the 
word — they indicate not the action of the 



30 CONSEQUENTS. 

word^ nor the direct effect of the action. The 
action \^ to put within — ^^intusposition" is that 
which is effected. Cool^ warm, wet, stain^ 
cleanse^ purify, are but consequents^ and must 
depend upon the fluid or substance^ as wet or dry^ 
cold OY ivarni^ pure ov foid^ into which the action 
indicated by haptizo tends. We may be im- 
mersed into a pool of filthy water or tar; and 
though immersed, yet not purified. Purify is 
not the import of the word. I may be immersed 
CA^en in pure water, yet not cleansed ; may be 
merely wet. Even if cleansed, cleansed would 
be a resultant, an incident of the clean water, 
and no more a meaning for haptizo than wet is 
for sprinkle. 

Dr. Dale, with all his array of learning, 
has failed just here. He gives a consequent 
meaning, ^'enveloped." 

Mr. Heaton, in his vaunted discovery, has 
failed in the same way — by giving "^^ drown," 
" kill" — mere resultant meanings. 

Dr. Edward Beecher, as we Avill show, fails 
in the same way by taking " purify," a result- 
ant and typical meaning. 

Bishop Merrill does the same thing when 



CEREMONIAL IMPORT. 31 

he hunts after typical meanings; as when he 
says, '^ There is still a, religious idea, a conse- 
cration to a holy service " — the import of the 
rite — not the meanini2: of the word that desiir- 
nates the action of the rite. So with those 
who use induct as a meaning — a spiritual pro- 
cess — the import of the rite, 

6. We are now prepared to say, to words and 
acts may be given a levitical or ceremonial im- 
port that mayor may not be found in the nat- 
ural tendency of the act indicated by the 
word. Thus is "sprinkling" of ^^sin water/' 
"water of purifying" (Num. viii, 7), 'Mvater 
of separation" (Num. xix, 9), water of cleans- 
ing, translated "clean water" (Ezek. xxxvi, 
25) — all the same fluid, made by steeping the 
ashes of a red heifer in [''mat/iin hayhn'^ 
fresh, living, or pure water. The sprinJcUng 
of this fluid on a person or thing had^ no 
natural tendency to cleanse, and the same was 
true of the sprinkling of the fluid composed 
of water and blood, or of blood itself. But the 
sprinkling of each might and did have (as part 
of the ceremony) the ceremonial import of 
cleanse, of separation — separation of the person 



32 SEPARATION. 

from defilement, separation of the people from 
their sins. By the order of heaven such sig- 
nificancy was given, and so by the order of 
heaven to baptism in water was given a simi- 
lar ceremonial signification — separation from 
sin, separation of the penitent believer from 
his sins^ separation from one kingdom into 
another, from the kingdom of Satan and of 
darkness into the kingdom of God and of light ; 
also, the going down of the old nvdu and the 
rising up of the new, death to sin and resur- 
rection to a newness of life. 

This manner of expressing ceremonial 
cleansing was not new to John. (See Lev. 
xi, 32.) As expressed in the Septuagint, the 
language is " the A^essel shall be dipped into 
water;" also, the ceremonial cleansing of the 
leper (2 Kings v, 10,) was performed by 
"dipping himself" (see v. 14). See also 
Numbers xxxi, 23, ^' pass through the water." 

Stuart quotes from Heroditus an instance 
of an Egyptian who had touched a swine, and 
then going down to the river, he (ebapse 
eaiiton) " dips himself with his clothes." What 
we mean to say is, John, by heaven's au- 



PUT WITHIN. 33 

thority, took this ceremony, not to express 
mere ceremonial separation from physical im- 
purities, but, in case of the penitent belicA^ers, to 
express pardon^ separation from sin. Also, we 
do not mean to say that, as a natural result 
from dipping in clean water, there may not 
be some separation from physical defilement. 
What we mean to say is, that separation from 
defilement depends upon the incident of pure 
water, and is not a necessary result of the ac- 
tion indicated by the word hapiizo. The im- 
port of the word is the action which the word 
designates — put within. 



34 EFFECT NOT A RITE. 



Chapter III. 

"PURIFY." 

DR. EDWARD BEECHER, whilst he freely 
admits that the word haptizo^ as used in 
the classics^ does usually mean to ^^ im- 
merse/' /^submerge," yet he asks: 

"Is there not another meaning derived from 
the effects of this act, in which the mind contem- 
plates the effect alone, entirely irrespective of the 
mode in which it is produced?" and adds: "I 
contend there is, and that as thorough purification 
ov cleansing is often the result of submersion in 
water, the word haptizo has come to signify to 
purify or cleanse thoroughly, without any reference 
to the mode in which it is done" — "the mind con- 
templates the effect alone, irrespective of the mode 
in wiiich it is produced" — "that haptizo comes to 
have a generic import, and to be a perfect sj^nonym 
to katliarizo''' and, " as used in the Scriptures, means 
one thing — to cleanse, to purify." 

We reply : 

1. An effect is not a rite, A rite is a 
^transaction/' "a religious performance." 
(Webster.) Baptism is a rite, the initiatory rite 
of Christianity, a symbolic representation, and 



DEFINITE MEANING. 35 

as such it must include a transaction. But an 
effect, like indue t, consecrate, purify^ is not a 
rite, ^^a symbolic transaction." 

2. Purify is not the effect of the action in- 
dicated by laptizo. The effect of that action is 
^^ intusposition/' withinness, as we have shown. 
Purify, as we have shown, will depend upon 
the medium or substance into which the ac- 
tion tends. Purify is iiot the import of the 
word anymore than wet is of sprinkle. The 
command is, "Go, disciple all nations, baptiz- 
ing them." The incident of water is to be 
learned afterward. The word has a definite 
meaning, independent of water, or blood, or fire. 
Esthio^ to eat, pino^ to drink, have definite, 
well-understood meanings ; indicate the action 
to be performed independent of the bread or 
Avine to be used; so of baptizo. 

3. In the very nature and design of all 
correct language, it can not be true that a 
Avord shall, in the same period of time, be 
used in a specific and also in a generic sense 
.when used to designate the action as a rite. 
To so use words would be to confound ideas 
and subvert language. 



36 DESCRIPTIVE TRANSLATION. 

4. The Greek word to express the generic 
idea of purify^ and then in familiar use, was 
katharizOy not haptizo. 

5. In the institution of a religious rite like 
baptism, there must be not only a transaction, 
but a descriptive transaction, a word carrying 
in its own bosom the mode of its action. Had 
our Lord simply said, '' Go, purify," the apos- 
tles might have required believers to pass 
through the fire, for this had been employed 
to effect purification. Had he merely said, 
Go, purify in or with w^ater, then they might 
have enjoined washing of hands, for such had 
been employed as a symbolic purification. 
(Deut. xxi, 6-8; Matt, xxvii, 24.) Some- 
thing more specific was necessary. 

Mr. Beecher's own illustration of a rite 
shows that the word designating the action 
must be specific, carry in its own bosom a 
description of the act. Referring to the rite 
of sprinkling of blood, he says : " Here is a 
rite denoting remission of sins by sprinkling 
of blood." The word sprinkle designates not 
mere effect, but action, specific action, mode. 
So must every word designating a rite. 



IMPORT OF A RITE. 37 

Again, we should discriminate between the 
import of a rite and the meaning of the word 
that designates the action of the rite. The 
import of the rite of circumcision is consecra- 
tion to God ; but consecration is not the 
meanino; of the word that desiornates the action 
of the rite. 

Separate, ^'cleanse/' is the import of the 
rite of sprinkling, as ^^ hearts sprinkled," 
cleansed, ^*^from an evil conscience;" but 
cleansed is not the meaning of the word when 
used to designate the action of the rite. Over- 
looking this distinction is Mr. Beecher's mis- 
take. So with Mr. Heaton, when he defines 
baptism as ^^ causing a change," and adds: 
^^It represents the great change of becoming 
a new creature." (Page 30.) But that which 
is represented by a thing is not the thing itself. 
The body and blood of our Lord are not the 
bread and wine that represent it. 

Many persons suppose that in the phrase 
" rite of baptism," (^/has a governing force, and 
indicates that baptism is something separate 
from the rite. This is a mistake. The of in 
such case is simply expletive, and the phrase 



38 SYMBOLIZATION. 

the same as the rite baptism; like the geni- 
tive of designation in Greek — '^ City of Troy." 
Troy is not something different from the city 
and governed by of, but is simply equal to the 
phrase "^ the city Troy." So baptism is not a 
mere spiritual state, separate from the exter- 
nal rite, but is an external, visible act, with 
its implied spiritual consecration, the action of 
which is immersion. 

Again, let the reader remember that the 
commission was not -^ Go, symbolize purifica- 
tion" — do anything with water which he may 
think is a symbol of purification; but the one 
positive command is either ^' Go purify" — or 
'^^Go immerse." But wetting the forehead is 
not a purification, nor a symbol of it. It is 
essential to a symbol that there be an analogy 
between the symbol and the thing symbolized. 
Between the baptism, the immersion and con- 
sequent emersion of a believer, and his death 
to sin and resurrection to a newness of life, 
we can see an analogy. Between the immer- 
sion of a believer and the washing away of sin 
we can see an analogy ; but we can not see an 
analogy between the mere effect of wetting 



DESIGN. 39 

the forehead and any of these states referred 
to. A bathing, an immersion, had often been 
employed to express a ceremonial cleansing. 
It had been used to designate purification and 
social justification. (Lev. xiA^, 9; Num. xix, 
8-19.) 

Mr. Beecher, speaking of immersion among 
the Jews, says : " The practice of bathing or 
immersing to purify was common to n whole 
nation" (page 19), and as such the immersion 
had a ceremoninl signification. 

We do not grant that the one leading design 
of baptism was the symbolizing of purifica- 
tion. It was primarily a declaration of repent- 
ance. (Mark i, 4 ; Matt, iii, 6.) It was a pro- 
fession of faith in Christ. (Mark xa^, 16 ; Acts 
ii, 38.) It was a solemn consecration to 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Matt, xxviii, 
19.) It was a symbol of the remission of 
sins — '^ unto the remission of sins " — a symbol 
of pardon, and in this sense of the washing 
aAvay of sin. (Mark i, 4; Acts xxii, 16.) 
Also with its burial and consequent emergence 
it was a symbol of death to sin and a res- 
urrection to newness of life. (Rom, vi, 4.) 



40 DESIGN. 

AlsOj baptism was emblematic of the over- 
whelming, copious, all-pervasive presence of 
the Holy Spirit. (Matt, iii, 11; Acts i, 5.) 
Dr. Beecher insists that the design of the 
baptism of the Holy Spirit was purification ; 
that this was the point of contrast between 
John's baptism and the baptism of the Holy 
Spirit; that therefore the baptism of John 
could have been nothing more than a symbolic 
purification, a mere effect produced by water. 
Mr. Beecher s first error is in confounding the 
fruit of the Spirit with the baptism or personal 
presence of the Spirit. The second error is 
in taking the import of the rite for the meaning 
of the word designating the action of the rite. 
The baptism of the Holy Spirit was not 
merely one of the effects of the Spirit, purifi- 
cation ; but it was the actual, overW'helming, 
copious, all-pervasive presence of the Spirit 
himself The baptism was a transaction — a 
copious gift of the Spirit. So John's baptism 
was not the mere effect of the rite, but the 
rite itself; it was a transaction — the transac- 
tion which the word indicates when used to 
designate action — an overwhelming with, or 



DESIGN, 



41 



submergency in^ water — a symbol of that 
other transaction, the overwhehiiing with 
the Holy Spirit, a submergence in the Holy 
Spirit. The great end, even of the baptism 
of the Spirit, was not chiefly that of purifica- 
tion. Those to whom the baptism of the Spirit 
was promised were already spiritually clean. 
'^ Ye are clean through the words which I have 
spoken unto you." (John xv, 3; xiii, 10.) 
These disciples needed something more than a 
mere changing of purpose by the Spirit and 
truth of Grod. The}^ needed, as preparation 
for their great work, the all-pervasive presence 
of the Holy Spirit himself — results of whose 
presence and powder would be recollection of 
truth, illumined understanding, light of the 
glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, in- 
creased love, assurance of ffdth, courage and 
boldness with which to preach the word of 
God. The baptism was not one of these ef- 
fects, nor all of them together, but the bestow- 
ment, the all-pervasive presence of the Hol}^ 
Spirit himself — a transaction. 

Mr. Ileaton makes a like mistake with Mr. 

Beecher when he takes " inspire,'' '' illumine,'* 

4 



42 SUMMARY. 

as the meaning of baptize, when such was only 
one of the results of the baptism of the Spirit. 
We may now sum up the preceding by say- 
ing, a word used to designate a religious rite 
may have 

1. Its common proper meaning — the mean- 
ing the word commonly had ivlien it was first 
used to designate the action of the rite. 

2. The word may have a resultant or con- 
sequent meaning — the meaning which desig- 
nates the result or consequence of the action. 

3. The word may have a typical meaning — 
the meaning which is the well-known import 
of the whole rite. Whilst each of the two 
latter meanings is appropriate in its proper 
sphere, neither may ever be used as meanings 
for the word when the word is used to desig- 
nate the action of the rite. Overlooking this 
truth is the cause of almost all the confusion 
on the subject of baptism. 

In the light of the preceding we may make 
a brief allusion to the recently expressed opin- 
ion of Prof. L. L. Payne, of Bangor Theolog- 
ical Seminary, and we make the allusion be- 
cause he represents the position of thousands. 



PROFESSOR PAYNE. 43 

In a recent lecture to his class in Church his- 
tory, he is reported through a Christian jour- 
nal as saying : " Immersion was the apostolic 
and primitive mode of baptism/' and that 
^^ sprinkling was not allowed until the fourth 
century/' and "then only in case of sickness/' 
when there was fear the patient would die 
without his sins being washed away. Whilst 
Prof. Payne admits that " immersion was the 
primitive practice/' " that no matter of Church 
history is clearer/' — "the evidence is all one 
way, and all Church historians of any repute 
agree in accepting it/' yet he does not accept 
the conclusion of Rev. A. L. Park, " that we 
ought then to give honor to the original mode 
of baptism, both by our preaching and prac- 
tice." In reply and in defense of sprinkling 
as a mode, Prof. Payne says : " The essence 
of baptism is not in the water used, which is 
merely a sign, but in that which is signified, 
namely, the spiritual cleansing." The error 
of the Professor is that of many. He substi- 
tutes the import of the rite — regeneration — for 
the rite itself. He might as well say consecra- 
tion was the essence of circumcision, and the 



44 PROFESSOR PAYNE. 

Jew might just as well scratch the forehead of 
the child — saying, " the form of the rite is 
nothing." In such a case he would omit the 
rite and do something else. 

Continuing his defense in" substituting 
sprinkling for baptism, he sajs, " The essence 
of the sign employed is not in a mere quantity 
of water used, but in the fact that water is 
used as being an instrument of outer cleans- 
ing, and so a good symbol of the inward 
cleansing from sin" — another error of the pro- 
fessor, and a very common one. We re- 
mark : Water, mere water, never was a sym- 
bol of outward or inward cleansing. Dip- 
ping in water has been. (See Lev. xi, 32 ; 
2 Kings V, 14). Naaman dipped himself seven 
times. 

Nor was, nor is sprinkling of mere water a 
symbol of outward or inward cleansing. I 
may sprinkle mere water on a man, and as a 
result he may be cooled or wet, but not 
cleansed. The sprinkling of the ^^w^ater of 
separation," or what was the same, the '' water 
of purification," was a part of the ceremony 
of cleansing, but not the sprinkling of mere 



PROFESSOR PAYNE. 45 

water, or "pure water/' as it is sometimes ex- 
ultingly called. 

Prof. Payne would be shocked at the im- 
piety of a Roman Catholic, if the latter should 
talk about the Lord's supper as he does about 
baptism. Suppose the Catholic should say, 
" The essence of the sign employed is not in 
the quantity of wine used, but in the fact that 
wine is used," and therefore I will simply stain 
the foreheads of communicants with wine; or 
I will sprinkle a little on the people as blood 
was sprinkled on the people under the Mosaic 
dispensation. Prof. Payne would say such 
usurpation is not only impious and dangerous, 
but fails to express a leading design of the 
rite — feeding upon Christ, communion, com- 
mon participation with him. So is it with 
these devices of sprinkling and pouring, not 
only unauthorized, unwarranted assumptions, 
but they fail to symbolize the doctrines of 
death to sin, and resurrection to a newness of 
life — the resurrection of our Lord, and our 
own resurrection. 

Again, the professor talks about the " form 
of the rite being subject to the laws of Chris- 



46 PROFESSOR PAYNE. 

tian liberty/' and in defense of this position 
quotes the words of John Calvin : 

" It is a matter of no importance, whether we 
baptize by entirely immersing the person baptized 
in the water, or only by sprinkling the water on 
him ; bat according to the diversity of the coun- 
tries this should be left free to the Churches. For 
the sign is represented in either. Although the 
mere term baptize means to immerse entirely, and 
it is certain that the custom of thus entirely im- 
mersing was anciently observed in the Church."^ 

Here is a concession that " baptize " means 
" immerse," and, therefore, that when our 
Lord said : " Go, disciple all nations (bap- 
tizonies)^ baptizing them," he enjoined immer- 
sion. No exceptions were made for climate 
or season; and now just as conscientious tem- 
perance men provide, even at cost and pains- 
taking, the unfermented juice of the grape, 
rather than logwood and whisky, so we should, 
as climates and seasons demand, provide neat, 
comfortable baptisteries, and foster the whole- 
some habit of doing in all things what our Di- 
vine Lord has commanded — immerse. 



^ Richard Watson takes a like position — see his ^^ The- 
ological Institutes," page 445. 



" OUR LIBERTY." 47 

Using our liberty to do something else than 
that Avhich God has commanded is simply dis- 
obedience to God^ impious in act^ and of dan- 
gerous tendency, opening the way^ as it does^ 
for illimitable usurpations. 

The reader may say, "' mere form is no- 
thing." We reply, the spirit of obedience to 
God, faithfulness to his institutions and their 
sacred import, is something in the Divine mind, 
and to us it ought to be. 

Moses Stuart, after his own concessions as 
to the import of haptizo^ quotes the words of 
Calvin as above, and adds : ^' To this opinion 
I do most heartily subscribe ;" and proceeds 
to give reasons — '^ The rite, he says, is merely 
external." We reply,. ^^ It is more. It implies 
spiritual, internal consecration." Mr. Stuart 
might have said concerning circumcision what 
he has said concerning baptism; but to Abra- 
ham that would not have been a reason why 
he might do some dissimilar act. Mr. Stuart 
might now say the same concerning the Lord's 
supper; but to a true Protestant that w^ould 
not be a reason why he might now merely 
" offer '^' and not specifically ^^ eat bread " 



48 '^manner" of the rite. 

and " drink wine." Whilst the Lord's supper 
is eminently spiritual in its design, it is also 
external in its mode, and specific in its action ; 
so is baptism. 

Mr. Stuart's second point is, ''. That no in- 
junction is anywhere given in the New Testa- 
tament respecting the manner in which this 
rite is performed." He might hav€ spoken 
just as absurdly concerning sprinkling under 
the Old Testament dispensation. The very 
word designates inanney\ Mr. Stuart very 
irrelevantly refers to the reclining position of 
the disciples at the time of the first observ- 
ance of the Lord's supper, and to the observ- 
ance in the night season, and asks : 

" Why do you not plead for its celebration by 
night, and this, too, in a reclining posture. You 
regard none of these circumstances. How, then, 
do you obey the command of Jesus: 'This do in 
remembrance of me?' '' 

We reply, 1. By doing what our Lord com- 
manded, ^^ eat bread " and ^^ drink wine." 2. 
There is no command as to the ^^ circum- 
stances " of time or posture, as to sitting, 
standing, kneeling, or reclining ; but there is 



SYMBOLIC IMPORT. 49 

as to eating and drinking ; " this " " do." The 
futility of Mr. Stuart's objections are surpris- 
ing, and yet hundreds make them. 

Mr. Stuart appropriately urges that we 
keep before our minds the '' symbolical import 
of the rite." But we add^ the import of the 
rite is not the meaning of the word that des- 
ignates the action of the rite. Also^ exact 
conformity to the external act does not in 
any wise detract from the ^^ symbolical import 
of the rite/' but rather heightens and intensi- 
fies it ; and that is a reason why we insist that 
all do literally and specifically what our Lord 
commanded — immerse. 



50 EN AND EIS. 



Chapter IV. 

EN AND EIS. 

THE use of the Greek prepositions en and eis 
ill connection with bapii^o may serve to 
throw additional light on the import of the 
word. The word hapti^o is ahnost uniformly 
followed by (en) in, or {eis) into, aud not by 
{sun^ with; once, remotely, b}^ epi ; and that 
not in the sense of with, but upon. (See 
Acts ii, 38.) 

This uniform use of the prepositions shows 
that the desii^'u of the writers was not to ex- 
press action upon, nor mere instrument with ; 
but medium i)} which the action was performed, 
and often relation into which it tends. 

That those who gave to us our present 
translation so understood the import of these 
prepositions is clear from their own transla- 
lation. In Mark i, 5, we have these words : 
^^And all were {ebciptizvnto en to lordaoie po- 
tamo) baptized in the river Jordan," not with 
the river Jordan. In verse 9 of the same 



OUR LORD IMMERSED. 51 

chapter we have, **And Jesus came from Naza- 
reth, of Galilee, and was baptized by John 
(eis ton lordanen) in the Jordan." 

The well-known meaning of eis is into. If 
the object forbid entrance, then the word may 
be rendered to or unto; but if the object does 
not forbid entrance, then the natural force of 
eis. ''from without to within," holds; and *' eis 
and the accusative case following verbs of mo- 
tion indicate that into which the action tends." 
Perhaps no rule in the construction of the 
Greek lanouao-e is more certainly true and 
established than this. So irresistibly true is 
the rule, that many pedo-baptists admit that 
the construction in Mark i, 9, shows that our 
Lord, in his baptism by John, was ''jpiit into 
the Jordan^'' '^immersed in the Jordan;" and 
the word here meaning immerse, it certainly 
in the fifth verse of the same cliapter means 
the same thing; and that John immersed the 
people there referred to. 

The same transaction being referred to in 
Matthew iii, 11. the word means the same. 
This is the natural construction, and the one, 
I presume, every Greek schoLir wouUl give, 



52 INTO WATER. 

uninfluenced by a theory or previous edu- 
cation. 

It is frequently said : " Whilst eis before 
the accusative case indicates the object into 
which the action tends, yet in the New Testa- 
ment the action is not into water, but into 
repentance and into Christ." We reply : 

1. Eis may at one time indicate the direct 
medium or object, even water ^ into which the 
action immediately tends; as, ^^ Jesus came, 
and was baptized (m ton lordanen) into the 
Jordan." (Mark i, 9.) Take a different ex- 
ample : '' One that dippeth with me (m to 
triihlion) into the dish," not at the dish. (See 
Mark xiv, 20; Matt, xxvi, 23.) 

2. Eisy at another time, may indicate the 
oljed for which the action is performed, the 
relation or condition into which the action brings 
the person baptized. Thus John said, " I, in- 
deed, baptize you {en hudati eis metanoian) in 
water into repentance." (Matt, iii, 11.) Here 
en indicates the medium in which the action 
is performed, eis the end to which the action 
tends, the relation into which the action brings 
the person baptized; — ^'baptized into the 



INTO RELATION. 53 

obligations incumbent on a disciple." (Rob- 
inson.) 

Like to this is the phrase haptizontes aiitous 
eis toonoma ton Patros. (Matt, xxviii^ 19.) As 
Stuart suggests, the word onoma^ name, is 
here used as an expletive, as the word shem in 
Hebrew often is. 

In baptizing proselytes, if the proselyte 
was to remain a servant, the relation was ex- 
pressed thus : tahal hshem avedj baptized into 
the name of a servant, ^. ^., into the relation 
of a servant. When the word name, as Rob- 
inson suggests, is omitted, the relation is im- 
plied, and eis may indicate coming into that 
relation. When the name is omitted, as it often 
is in our version, the import of eis is often 
rendered by iinto^ thus : " I, indeed, baptize you 
unto repentance," " baptized mito Moses," not 
literally into him. The proselyte servant was 
not brought by his baptism into another per- 
son, his master, but unto him, or into the re- 
lation of a servant to him. 

We have a similar construction in Romans 
vi, 4. Here eis indicates relation, '' baptized 
into Christ," ^. ^., into the relation of disciples 



54 INTO RELATION. 

to Christy — " into his death/' ^. ^., into the rela- 
tion of dead ones with him — ^he for sin, we 
to it. 

Like to this is the exposition of Acts ii, 38 : 
" Baptized into the remission of sins/' into the 
relation of forgiven ones. It is evident that 
neither repentance nor baptism can bring us 
literally into the act remission. That is 
God's act. But repentance can bring us into 
such relation to him, such a moral, spiritual 
oneness with him, that he can meet us and 
forgive. 

Baptism is declarative of the two facts — re- 
pentance on our part and forgiveness on God's 
part; and thus both repentance and baptism 
are {eis) to the end remission of sins — the one 
absolute, the other relative; the one makes us 
in purpose right before God, the other before our 
own souls and the world. Neither we nor the 
world can have any assurance that we are in 
a salvable state, only as we and the world can 
see the fruits of righteous obedience. '^By 
their fruits ye shall know them." ^^He that 
doeth righteousness is righteous :"— not that 
the mere doing makes us righteous, but the 



INTO RELATION. 55 

objective doing is the evidence of the subject- 
ive feeling and willing. 

Baptism, then, is like any other work of obe- 
dience ; it evidences the faith within. It has 
this preeminence : it stands at the head of 
Christian doing; it is a first fruit or pledge — 
representative of the future life. Hence, in 
the New Testament, the intimate connection 
between baptism and salvation. ^^He that 
belie veth and is baptized shall be saved " — he 
that has faith, that evinces itself in the works 
of obedience, shall be saved. Repentance 
and baptism, then, are (eis) to the end remis- 
sion of sins — into the relation of forgiven ones. 

JEtSy then, shows relation. The object may 
be the medium or substance into which the ac- 
tion immediately tends, or it may be the rela- 
tion into which the rite brings us as disciples 
or foraiven ones. 

We may add in the language of Professor 
Kendrick, " Prepositions are flexible things." 
Sometimes they enter into the composition of 
words. Other words reject them. Sometimes 
they follow a verb, at other times the same 
word may be used, and in reference to 



56 PREPOSITIONS FLEXIBLE. 

the same transaction^ and the preposition 
left out. 

Sometimes one preposition, as eis^ will fol- 
low, and at another, another preposition, as en^ 
will follow, and the same verb and in refer- 
ence to similar or the same transaction, as, 
" Dip his finger (eis) into the blood " (Lev. ix, 
9) ; '' that thy foot may be dipped (en) in the 
blood of thine enemies" (Ps. Ixviii, 23). 
Again : " One of the twelve dippeth with me 
{eis) into the dish" (Mark xiv, 20);— "he 
that dippeth his hand with me (en) in the 
dish" (Matt, xxvi, 23.) So we use in 
and into. 

Moses Stuart has given many examples 
where eis before the accusative is used like en 
before the dative case, and refers to John ix, 
7; John i, 18; Mark ii, 1 ; xiii, 16; Luke xi, 
7; Acts xviii, 21; Mark xiii, 9. 

In such case we say in English dip in, as 
dip in the wine, immerse in the Jordan. 

It has been observed that in classic Greek 
eis does not often follow haptizo. True, and 
for the reason that writers in classic Greek 
relied upon the cases to express relation. As 



WATKINS VS. HEATON. 57 

the lang:un2:e chanirecl, there was a more fre- 

quent use of prepositions. Winer Sciys : 

'' The construction with a preposition doubtless 
attracted the New Testament writers, tiirough the 
influence of the explicit and graphic idiom of their 
vernacuhir tongue." 

Luke, who, of all the evangelists, wrote the 
purest Greek, uses the dative without a prepo- 
sition more frequently than the others. 

Rev. I. E. Ileaton thinks he has discov- 
ered a new and decisive use of cis. The reply 
of Rev. B. U. Watkins is so pertinent and ef- 
fective that 1 append it : 

" Dear Brother Heaton : — The gist of your theory 
is this: that eis coming before an accusative pre- 
ceded by a simple verb, tiie motion of the verb 
stops at the edge or border of such object, and en- 
trance is precluded. This is surely what you mean 
when you say tliere is no more Scripture for going 
into the icater^ than for 'not eating meat on Fri- 
day.' Wow, Brother Heaton, stand up to this, like 
a man, and this controversy can soon be decided. 

"The preposition eis is met with some sixteen 
hundred and twenty-nine times. In canvassing 
the first two hundred and forty-six examples, you 
will find one hundred and forty-four which defy 
your assumjition. And onl_y ten 3'ou cnn legiti- 
matelj' claim, and they, having no connection with 
baptism, are entirely irrelevant to the question in 

5 



58 WATKINS VS. HEATON. 

band. What would 3^011 say to me, if I should tell 
3^011 that haptizo can not mean sprinkle, because 
raino and rantizo always have that signification ? 
Would you think such an allegation a new and de- 
cisive evidence of immersion? This evidence is 
precisely of the same sort as that 3^ou urge. Let 
eiserchomai eis occur as often as it may, and let its 
meaning be as uniform as possible, so long as it is 
not connected with baptism it is entirelj^rrelevant. 
But if 3^ou canjprove that the non-repetition of the 
preposition precludes g'om^ m^o the water, liere may 
come an important phase of the controvers3\ 

"It is admitted that eisporeuomai eis means going 
into \QVj definitel3^ But it is not true that po?^6i^o- 
maim negatives entrance. There are one hundred 
and fifty-one examples of simple poreuomai in the 
New Testament. This verb is frequently followed 
b3^ eis, but not in one single case does 3^our argu- 
ment hold good. Under this verb, one of your own 
choosing, the notion of going into is never excluded, 
but alwa3^s strongl)^ shown as such connection. 

"Your second word, emhaino, never having an3^ 
thing to do with going into an3" substance whatever, 
except into a ship, I can hardly see why 3^ou intro- 
duce it at all, except it be to darken counsel with 
words. 

"The uncompounded erchomai, the last verb 3^ou 
claim as belonging to 3^our discover3^, is found some 
five hundred times in the four gospels and the Acts. 
It is followed b3^ eis seven t3^-five times. And seven 
of these examples you can claim, and 8ixt3^- eight 
are uncompromisingl3^ <ngainst you. 



WATKINS VS. HEATON. 59 

" It has been already laid down as a canon, that 
eis connects verbs of motion with the object toward 
which it tends, whether such motion terminates in 
an intusposition or not. But since so thoroughly 
canvassing this question, I find the canon belongs 
rather to the classics than to the sacred dialect. 
And the exceptional cases you quote and claim are 
not sufficiently numerous to create an idiom, but 
should be classed under* the head of exceptions 
merely. There are multitudes of examples where 
the action of erchoinai stops short of an iiitusposi- 
tion. But in such eases, the connectives are almost 
un i for m 1 y ep i or pros. 

"Thus, Philip and the Ethiopian came to (epi) 
a certain water. But when baptism took place, 
they both went down, (katabaino) into (eis) the 
water, not {epi) to the water. If the historian had 
wished to express the thought you indicate, he 
would have continued the preposition epi. They 
were both up in the chariot, and katabaino is the 
only Greek word I can now call to mind competent 
to express this descent. If this descent stopped 
short at the edge of the water, 1 freely admit it is 
rather favorable to your theory, and adverse to 
mine. But what evidence have you of your favor- 
ite notion ? The circumstances of the case are 
thus : Eis is here used, which means into sixty- 
eight times, to seven where it merely means to, 
Now, my brother, how about the uniformity of an 
idiom based upon seven examples, with sixty-eight 
exceptions?" 



60 EN. 

EN 

We now notice the assumption that "en is 
locative, indicates the instrument — that it 
never designates motion, never points out the 
enveloping object." 

That en is often locative, governing a 
dative of place, is true, and should, in such 
case, be rendered in; as ^^The voice of one 
crying in the Avilderness." 

That en used with a dative of instrument 
may often be rendered tvith^ or h?/^ is also true. 

That it may also indicate the object within 
which an action is done, and even into Avhich 
the action tends, is just as true, and still 
more common. 

Professor Loos remarks : 

" This preposition occurs between two and three 
thousand times in the New Testament, and in si^x- 
sevenths or more of all the cases it retains its di- 
rect, simple meaning of in ; the same is largely true 
in its profane use. The use of en to denote that in 
which an action is performed is one of the com- 
monest uses of this word in Greek, and its normal 
use, whether it is nsed often with haptizo or not. 

"In the New Testament, as abundantly as in 
the classics, the element of the baptizing is indi- 



EN. 61 

cated as distinctively by the dative with en, as the 
general rule, and a few times by the simple dative, 
as if eis were always used. The fact of usage out- 
side of the New Testament is, that the element of bap- 
tizing is indicated by the dative with or without en al- 
most fovr TIMES as often as by eisioith the accusative ; 
the simple dative alone occurs twice as often as eis ; 
with the Greek Fathers en is the rule." 

Take a single instance. Easily in. his com- 
ment on Rom. vi^ 3^ says : '' osper ho sideros 
haptizomenos en to piirL as steel immersed in 
the fire." Evidently en shows the relation of 
fire to immersed — that into which the action 
tends — the enveloping medium. 

Winer says : 

"The dative, in a wide and general sense, is 
called the casus instrument alis. For the simple 
dative, denoting the material or essential medium 
Qielfsmittel) by means of which an action is per- 
formed, we have the i^repositions dia or en; also 
meta. This stands, instead of baptizesthai hudati, 
usually 6?i hudatij in water (Matt, iii, 11; John i, 
26-31), but also en pneumati.'^ 

Whilst, then, in the use of the dative, with 
or without a preposition, the idea of instru- 
mentality may often be retained, yet still more 
often, — not in the sense of a mere instrument 
with which, but to indicate the element in 



62 SIMPLE DATIVE. 

which any thing is^ or is done — the element of the 
immersion ; and a verb of motion like ha'pto or 
haptizo shows that the action is into the envel- 
oping medium. Many examples from the 
Old and New Testaments may be adduced. 
Naaman dipped himself (en lordane) in Jor- 
dan. (2 Kings v, 14.) Ruth dipped the 
bread {en to oxei^\vL the vinegar. (Ruth ii, 
14.) '' He took a mattress, and (ebapsen en to 
hudati) dipped it in water." (2 Kings viii, 15. 
See also Deut. xxxiii, 24; Ps. Ixvii, 23; 
Matt, xviii, 6 ; John v, 4.) 

It is especially assumed that the dative 
case, without a preposition, as in Luke iii, 16, 
never denotes that in which a thing is done, 
but denotes that by means of which a thing is 
done. The first part of this assumption is an 
error, as Moses Stuart has shown in his trea- 
tise on baptism, page 81, edition published by 
Graves & Marks. He there shows that the 
"classical writers have expressed themselves 
in different ways when employing the words 
hapto and haptizo!' 

After noticing the use of the genitive with- 
out a preposition and the dative with a prepo- 



SIMPLE DATIVE. 63 

sitioiij he then gives cases of the dative with- 
out a preposition, as : 

Aristophanes: "They dip the wool (thermo) in 
warm water ; dative without ev." 

Heraclides : "-Hudati haptizetai'' 

Strabo: "Dipped (oistois) in the gall of ser- 
pents; dative without a preposition." 

Yet every man can see, even by Stuart's 
translation, which here is faithful, that the ac- 
tion is into the water and into the poison, 
just as clearly as if the case had been ex- 
pressed with a preposition, and en or eis had 
been used. 

Winer, speaking concerning the dative, 
says : 

" In Greek the dative is the more comprehensive 
in its import, because it represents the ablative also, 
which in Latin is a separate case." 

Again he says : " Sometimes we find in parallel 
phrases a preposition now inserted and now 
omitted. This difference in phraseology does not 
affect the sense, but each form of expression arose 
from a different conception, Baptizein en hudati 
signifies, baptize in water' (immersing); baptizein 
hudati, baptize with water. Here, as in most other 
passages, the identity of the two expressions in sense 
is manifest." (Page 412.) 



64 SIMPLE DATIVE. 

The difference of phraseology arising from 
difference of conception, the sense, the mean- 
ing is the same, *^ immersing." Tliis is strong 
authority. 

It is often said, ^*^ We have a rule in gram- 
mar declaring that the dative without a prepo- 
sition denotes instrument with which a thing 
is done." True, and yet, as shown by Winer, 
this may be the enveloping instrument, that 
within Avhich the action is done. 

That hiidatij the simple dative, following 
haptizo^ often indicates the enveloping instru- 
ment, the medium into which the action tends, 
is as certain as when followed by en Imdati. 
Both forms of expression are often used in 
reference to the same facts. In Matthew iii, 
11, and John i, 26, it is said of John that he 
baptized '^ (en) in water." Luke iii, 16; Acts 
i, 5, and xi, 16, it is said, ^^ John baptized 
hudatV^' the simple dative. Do the two forms 
of expression, used of identically the same 
fact, not express the same act? 

"In Luke xvi, 24, as found in Codex Sinaiticus^ 
we have ^dip the tip of his finger (Jiudati) in water.' " 
(Professor Loos.) 



SIMPLE DATIVE. 65 

No one will pretend to sny that this should 
be rendered sprinkle with water. Here the sim- 
ple dative expresses ^"^in water." The context 
Avill not allow any thing else, and settles the 
question of grammar. 

Professor Loos, showing how the early 
Greek copyists of the New Testament under- 
stood the substantial oneness in meaning of 
the two forms of expression, refers to the 
various readings of the manuscripts of these 
texts, and says : 

^' In the common Greek text, in Mark i, 8, we 
have, ^I, indeed, baptize you en hudati.' in water; 
in the Cod, Sinaiticus it is simply hudati -/ in the 
Textiis Acceytus and in the Sinait, Codex we have, 
V. 8, 'But he shall baptize you en, in, the Holy 
Spirit;' in the Vat. Codex, the simple dative. 
These and similar cases show that the Greek copy- 
ist^ regarded these forms as the same thing." 

The professor adds examples from the 
classics : 

"Homeric Allegories, ch. 9: 'Since the mass of 
iron, drawn red hot from the furnace, is baptized 
(plunged) hudati, in water,' — the simple dative. Is 
there any possible doubt as to what the simple 
dative means here? 

"Alexander of Aplirodisias, Medical and Physi- 



66 SIMPLE DATIVE. 

cal Problems, i, 28 : 'They have the soul very much 
baptized (immersed) in the body.' The simple da- 
tive again, to somati. To show what this writer 
means by this, we quote from him a parallel pas- 
sage, same work, ii, 38 : 'Because they have their 
nature and perceptive faculty baptized (immersed, 
buried) in the depth of the body' en to hathei tou so- 
matos. It is evident that with this writer to somati 
is precisely equal to * in the depth of the body.' 
It is certainl}^ beyond dispute what baptizo with the 
simple dative means here. 

" Chrysostom, on Ps. vii, sec. 14: 'For he (Ab- 
salom), indeed, desired to baptize (plunge) his right 
hand in his father's neck,' laimoto patriko, the sim- 
ple dative, the dative or ablative locative. Is this 
clear? Could it be clearer if eis or en were us^d? 
Or would the meaning be different? 

"Look at the following cases : 

" Clement of Alexandria says, Psedagogues 1, 2, 
ch. 2 : ' For drowsy is every one who is not watch- 
ful for wisdom, but is baptized (plunged) by drunk- 
enness into (eis) sleep.' 

"Evenus, of Paros, in an epigram, says of Bac- 
chus that he 'baptizes (plunges) in sleep, neigh- 
bor of death.' Here hypno, sleep, is the simple 
dative. 

"So Heliodorus, Ethiopics, 1, 4, c. 17: 'When 
midnight had plunged (baptized) the city in sleep,' — 
again the simple dative hypno. 

"Now, here are three cases precisely alike as to 
expression and meaning. In the first eis connects 
baptizo with sleep ; in the other two, the simple da- 



SIMPLE DATIVE. 67 

tive limits the verb. Is there any doubt as to the 
meaning of the latter two forms, and do they differ 
from the first? 

''In the Christian Father, Libanius, we have the 
expression, ' Baptized in ignorance and unwilling 
to emerge.' The latter part shows what the first 
part of the statement means; agnoia, ignorance, is 
the simple dative. 

" Isodorus says similarly, ' Baptized in ignorance, 
amathia^' — simple dative. So Clement of Alexandria. 

" Chrysostom : ' Baptized (buried) in ten thousand 
sins.' So we sing, ' Buried in sorrow and in sin.' " 



68 FIGURATIVE USE. 



Chapter V. 

FIGURATIVE USE. 

A CAREFUL consideration of this will aid 
us in determining the import of the lit- 
eral. All figurative language must have two 
characteristics : — the one is analogy^ the other 
is force, vividness. 

1. There must be analogy. The figurative 
must find its analagon^ its imagery^ in the lite- 
ral, or it can not be understood or explained. 
If the sense, or imagery of figurative baptism 
be that of scattering in particles, then Ave must 
find this in the action of the literal. If the 
figurative sense be that of burying or over- 
whelming, then the literal must be such ; the 
one must find its counterpart in the other. 

We here remark, the figurative is not a 
figure of a figure — a mere effect, as symbol- 
ized purification; but is a figure of the literal. 
Purifiers do not pretend to purify literally — 
only symbolically, figuratively. Immersion- 
ists immerse, submerge, overwhelm literally; 



OVERWHELM. 69 

and when they speak of spiritual or figurative 
baptism^ they have before their minds an effect 
upon the soul by the Holy Spirit similar to 
that upon the body Avhen submerged in water. 
Even pedobaptists concede this. 

Moses Stuartj speaking of this baptism of 
the Spirit^ says: ^^ The basis of this usage is 
very plainly to be found in the designation 
of hajotizo^ of the overwhelming, ^, c.^ of the 
surroundinGf on all sides with a fluid." 

Robinson, in his Greek lexicon, on the 
word haptizo^ referring to the baptism of the 
Spirit, says : " The phrase is used metaplioric- 
ally^ and in direct allusion to the sacred rite — 
to overwhelm, richly furnish with all spiritual 
blessings," — bringing the soul (willingly) into 
entire, sweet subordination to the divine. 

This baptism in Holy Spirit was before the 
mind of John when he said to the multitude: 
^^I indeed baptize you in Avater, but he that 
cometh after me shall baptize you in the Holy 
Spirit and in fire." 

Cyril, of Jerusalem, said: ^^As he that 
goes down into the water and is baptized is 
encompassed on all sides by the waters, so 



70 FORCE VIVIDNESS. 

were they completely baptized by the Spirit. 
The water envelops externally ; but the Spirit 
baptizes, and that perfectly, the soul within." 
(Conant, p. 69.) 

There is, then, an analogy between the fig- 
urative and the literal, and the imagery of 
the figurative shows what the action of the 
literal must have been. 

The second characteristic of fiorurative Ian- 
guage is force, vividness. Thus we say of 
Christ, " He is the Lion of the tribe of Judah." 
The lion is strong and bold, the prince of 
beasts. The figure has force. And so is the 
expression immersed in, overwhelmed with 
Holy Spirit; but sprinkled with the Holy 
Spirit would be a weak, belittling expres- 
sion, and therefore can not be the literal from 
which to take the figurative. 

The reader may reply, " I would not say 
sprinkled with the Holy Spirit." Why not, if 
sprinkle be the act of a literal baptism ? The 
literal ought to furnish a fit analagon for the 
figurative. 

Do you say, ^^ I would say purified with the 
Holy Spirit?" But you have no such literal. 



OVERWHELMING MEASURE. 71 

You do not pretend to purify literally — only 
symbolically. But a figure is not a figure of 
a figure, but of the literal. 

Again, as shown in a pre^nous number, 
purification was not ilie end to be attained, for 
these apostles, who were now to receive a 
baptism of the Spirit, were already spiritually 
cleansed. Our Lord had said to them, ^*^Ye 
are clean through the words which I have 
spoken unto you." But they needed such a 
measure of the Holy Spirit as would enable 
them to speak the word with great boldness, 
clearness, and power. 

To this end they needed that measure of 
the Spirit that might be properly termed a 
baptism, an overwhelming measure. In such 
a figure there was force and fitness, just such 
as the Holy Spirit might use. 

Another effort is made for sprinkling or 
pouring water by saying, ^^ The Spirit is rep- 
resented as descending upon us, as applied to 
us; not as that into which we are immersed." 

We reply, if there be any force in this po- 
sition, it rests upon the assumption that the- 
Greek preposition en must be so construed 



72 NOT MANNER OF APPROACH. 

as to indicate instrument applied^ as sprin- 
kled or poured upon, wlien^ as we have shown, 
in such connection it may properly designate 
the instrumental medium in luhich an act is done. 
In these cases referred to, and in ICorinthians 
xii, 13, en^ following the passive form of the 
verb, clearly shows the relation of water and 
Spirit as the instrumental medium in which, 
or W'ith Avhich, the envelopment is effected. 

We may here call the special attention of 
the reader to the fact, as seen in the context, 
that the design of inspiration is to direct at- 
tention to the power or effect of the Spirit upon 
the soul of man, and not to the w\ay he comes — 
manner of approach^ as on or under; and espe- 
cially not to the manner in tuJiich water is to be 
applied. How ridiculous it w^ould be to say 
that, because the Spirit is represented as 
springing up in us as a well of water, that 
therefore in baptism w^ater must be put under 
us and made to spring up in us; or, because 
by the same Spirit we are represented as 
filled with the Spirit, that therefore in our 
baptism water mast be poured into us, and we 
be literally filled with it! 



ASPECT OF THE WRITER. 73 

The truth is this : the personal presen(3e of 
the Holy Spirit is presented under different 
figures, accordlnr/ to the aspect of the loriier at the 
time. When seen as a never failing, satisfy- 
ing source^ it is described as a well of water 
springing up unto everlasting life. (John 
iv, 14.) When seen as a flowing source of 
joy, the Spirit's presence is compared to a 
river flowing from our inmost being, (John 
vii, 37.) When the Spirit is seen as some- 
thing eagerly received, the reception is com- 
pared to a ^^ drinking in." (1 Cor. xii, 13.) 
When seen as descending upon us with over- 
whelming, nil-pervading power, that presence 
is spoken of as a baptism, as in 1 Corinthians 
xii, 13. 

There is here evident allusion to the same 
baptism of the Spirit as witnessed on the 
apostles on the day of Pentecost; also at the 
house of Cornelius and on those Paul baptized 
at Ephesus; for there is here reference to the 
same gifts. Whilst these Christians at Coriiitli 
had, by their wafer baptism, been brought into 
the one body, they were by this baptism of 
the Spirit sealed as such. 

6 



74 SIGN OF DIVINE PRESENCE. 

I do not regard this text as alluding to 
regeneration or spiritual induction into Christ, 
and this as the meaning of baptism, as some 
do; but to a falfiUment of that promised be- 
stowment (Acts ii, 39,) ^Yhich came after their 
regeneration and baptism. Whilst regenera- 
tion and induction into Christ was instantane- 
ous and prior, this was a continued sign of di- 
vine jjrescnce. A little sprinkling could not be 
a fit analagon for this overwhelming presence. 
Nothing but an overwhelming tide can furnish 
a suitable analngon for the figure our Lord 
employed when he said, ^^I have a baptism to 
be baptized with, and how am 1 straitened 
until it be accomplished." Again: ^^Are ye 
able to drink of the cup I shall drink of, and 
to be baptized with the baptism I am baptized 
with?" (Matt. XX, 22.) There was before 
him no rite of consecration nor of spiritual 
purification; there was before him an over- 
whelming of sorrows and trials. At the time 
of his great sorrow and trial he said, " My 
soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." 
Barnes, in his notes on this passage, after 
stating that the cup evidently refers to trials 



HELL-FIRE. 75 

or sufferings (see John xviii^ 11), says : "The 
phrase, ' the baptism that I am baptized with/ 
evidently refers to the same thing" — suffer- 
ing — and paraphrases it thus : ^^Are you able 
to be plunged deep in afflictions, to have sor- 
rows come over vou like water, and to be 
sunk beneath calamities as floods in the work 
of religion?" The figurative use of the word 
here unquestionably shows what the literal 
was. Can any thing be more certain? 

Again it is said : " There was also to be a 
baptism ' with ' or in fire — that surely the 
persons baptized were not immersed in fire." 
We reply by asking : 

1. Does the fire mean hell-fire ? vSo Stuart, 
Robinson, Turney, and many others think ; 
that "whilst some, of Johns audilo^^ would 
be immersed in Holy Spirit, the ^generation 
of vipers' would be immersod in hell-fire." It 
is worthy of note, that when the disciples 
alone are addressed, as in Acts i, 5, fire is not 
alluded to, and that v^ evdi'^ other part of that 
third chapter of Ljiatihew uLcre fire is alluded 
to, it is in reference to the punivshuir^nt of the 
wicked. If this be tlie allusion, then the bap- 



76 ^' LIKE AS TO FIRE." 

tism in both instances was a submergence, an 
overwhelming — one in Holy Spirit, the other 
in hell-fire. 

But many insist that the class to be bap- 
tized in fire were those baptized in the Holy 
Spirit, and that the baptism of fire was the 
lambent appearances seen on the head of the 
apostles on the day of Pentecost. We reply: 

(1.) A sitting upon is not a baptism. 

(2.) The tongues seen were not of fire, but 
only something ^Uike as to fire" — the mere 
symbols of power to speak wilh tongues. 

(3.) Those who were to receive a baptism of 
the Spirit were not mei'ely a few apostles, on 
the day of pentecost, but also persons in the 
house of Cornelius, Acts x, 45, xi, 16 ; and the 
Church at Corinth, 1 Cor. xii, 13 ; at Ephesus 
and other places — a real presence in the hearts 
and lives of many, 

2. If the allusion be to trials, sufferings, 
under the figure of fire, as in Isa. iv, 4, or 
Luke xii, 49-51 : "I am come to send fire on 
the earth," etc. — if this be the meaning, then 
the thought is similar to, or the same as that 
referred to in Matt, xx, 22, when the manifest 



USED INTENSIVELY. 77 

overwhelming of sorrows is referred to — 
a baptism of sufferings, of trials, — possibly 
judgments on the Jewish nation. 

Others insist tlmt the language is figurative, 
and means love — " wrapped in a flame of love/' 
shed abroad by the Holy Spirit. Others insist 
that the word fire is used metonymically — ■ 
equal to purify ; as when metals are passed 
through fire to purify them. In either case 
the figurative indicates what the literal was — 
an immersion, a submergence. 

The reader can see that in the many views 
every one has to imply a submergence, and 
that sprinkle or pour would destroy the foy^ce 
of the figure. 

Our own opinion is that the word fire, as 
here used, refers not to hell-fire nor lambent 
flames on the heads of the apostles on the day 
of Pentecost, but was used, as we frequently 
see other words, intenmchj ; that whilst there 
would be a baptism of the Spirit, a personal 
presence, overwhelming and all-pervasive, 
there would be, as effects of this, light life 
and gloiy, making the recipients flames of 
light and refining power. 



78 ANTITYPE. 

BAPTISM AN ANTITYPE. 

1 Pet. iii, 21 : '^The like figure whereunto 
baptism doth now save us, not the putting 
away of the fillh of the flesh, but the answer 
of a good conscience toward God, through the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ." 

There is here a clear allusion to the rite of 
baptism, and the water of the rite ; for, as 
Barnes suggests, the relative^ whether it be (o) 
which, or (w) to which, evidently refers, not 
to ark, but wetter^ with which it agrees in 
gender. 

The original word {aniitiijpon)^ translated 
figure, is more literally and correctly rendered 
antitype. A ^^ figure "is not always an anti- 
type. 

The original word epcrotema is properly 
rendered " answer," response ; and the word 
simeidesis means literally, Avithin-knowledge, 
perception, consciousness — used to express 
judgment, 2 Cor. \y^ 2, 5, 11; conscious con- 
secration to God, Acts xxiii, 1 ; with this a 
feeling of approval, 1 Tim. i, 5, 19. 

In the text under consideration the word 



" BAPTISM SAVES." 79 

is used to express approving, conscious conse- 
cration to God; and the whole verse may be 
thus paraphrased — " To which (water) the an- 
titype, baptism (not the mere ceremonial wash- 
ing for putting away the filth of the flesh, as 
among the Jews, but true baptism, including, 
as it does, an approving consecration to God, 
moA'^ed by faith, ' and a lively hope,' begot- 
ten by the resurrection of our Lord), saves." 

The reader will see that the baptism con- 
sists not in the mere outward act, nor in the 
mc7^e internal spiritual state; but, lil^e confes- 
sion, implies both ; and both moved by faith in 
the resurrection of our Lord — such baptism 
may be said to save, 

1. Relatively, as the water saved Noah, not 
as that in consequence of which his sins were 
remitted. These had been remitted before; but 
the w^ater saved Noah by translating him from 
the old world into the new — from his relation 
to the WMcked to his relation to the righteous. 
So baptism saves us, ritually, by translating 
us from the old world i^to the new, — from our 
association with the wicked into our associa- 
tion with the righteous. 



80 SUBJECTIVELY AND TYPICALLY. 

2. Baptism saves us subjectively by its spirit 
of true consecration to God, just as an}^ other 
inward grace does. Thus we are said to be 
'^ saved by hope " — Rom. viii, 24 — so baptism, 
involving, as it does, conscious devotion to 
God, a consciousness that we have now 
performed the completing act of our confes- 
sion, and come within the walls of God's holv 
covenant, saves ; imparting, as it does, a sense 
of confidence and rest. Baptism is in this re- 
spect like confession — '^ With the heart man 
believeth into righteousness; and with the 
mouth confession is made into salvation " — 
into a state of conscious rest and security in 
God's promised grace and salvation. 

3. Baptism saves typically. The water of 
the flood, as we have seen, is the prototype, 
baptism the antitype. If a type, then it is 
not a mei^e spiritual feeling— \i mere good 
conscience — not a mere spiritual state, as re- 
generation or induction ; but is such a visible 
transaction in water as can be a type — not a 
mere symbol of purification ; nor even of the 
Avashing away of sin, but a type — an antitype — ■ 
an antitype that saves, through the '' resurrec- 



A TYPE. 81 

tion of Christ." To do this it must be not 
a mere antitype of the flood, but also a iijpc 
of our resurrection, for an antitype mny 
become also a type of a future object. Thus, 
whilst the tabernacle ^Yas an antitype of 
the type shown to Moses in the Mount, 
it also became a type of the future temple 
and future Church. So this antitype baptism is 
also a type, a tyq^e of our future resurrection; 
and ^^ saves," tj^pically, ^^by giving us as- 
surance that we shall be saved from the 
grave, through the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ, emblematically represented in bap- 
tism." (Macknight.) Similar in thought is the 
expression of Paul (1 Cor. xv, 29), '^ else 
what shall they do who are baptized for the 
dead" — ^/for the hope of the resurrection of 
the dead." (Barnes.) Neither sprinkling, 
pouring, nor Avashing can be an antitype of 
the flood, nor a type of our future resurrection. 
Also the fact that the apostle refers to bap- 
tism as " not a putting aw^ay of the filth of the 
flesh," is evidence that the baptism was not 
by sprinkling. It w\as only some similar act 
to baptism that could have been mistaken for 



82 "ANY USE." 

a putting away of the filth of the flesh ; but 
there is no evidence that tlie mere sprinkling 
of mere water, or damping the forehead with 
a little water, had, at that time, any such sig- 
nificancy; but immersion in water had. Naa- 
man dipped himself in Jordan as a symbol of 
the cleansing he was about to receive. The 
law of cleansing was, that " all that would 
not stand the fire should go through the ivaterr 
(Num. xxxi, 23.) 

Once more, any use of water that may 
satisfy a biased or unenlightened conscience 
is not baptism, any more than any use of ' 
bread and wine is the Lord's supper. 



RELIGIOUS USE. 83 



Chapter VI. 

RELIGIOUS USE. 

IT is cLaimed that the word haptizo in its re- 
ligious use was changed in its import, and 
came to denote all purifications, Avhether 
washings, sprinklings, or immersions; and that 
such change is analogous to like changes in 
other words. We reply : 

1. No such change has ever occurred in 
any other words employed to designate a rite 
or positive command ; as eat, drink, sprinkle, 
circumcise. 

2. We readily concede that to such words 
an additional import, an appropriated significa- 
tion is given, but not subversive of the literal^ 
common meaning. 

Let us take the very examples adduced to 
show change in their religious use. Take the 
Greek word TJieos, This, by Bacred, as by secu- 
lar writers was used to designate a superior.be- 
inir. To the true God the sacred writers at- 
tached the additional ideas of omniscience, 



84 APPROPRIATED MEANING. 

and omnipotence, but not subversive of the 
original common meaning — a superior being. 

So in the use of haptizo. They used it 
as commonly used, to denote immersion, with 
the additional idea, or appropriated significa- 
tion, of consecration to Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit. 

Take Ecclesia^ in the classics. The word 
means citizens called together, assembly, con- 
gregation. In the New Testament the w^ord 
is generally translated Church; retaining the 
same radical idea of assembly or congregation, 
with the additional idea of a con^rre^ration of 
believers^ and most generally of bajotized believ- 
ers. The original signification of the word is 
not varied nor destroyed by the additional 
idea. So with Deipnon, Angelos, Baptisma. 
Cremer says : " The New Testament use of 
the word baptizo is to denote immersion, sub- 
mersion for a religious purpose — baptize." 

Bishop Merrill, Rev. J. E. Heaton, and 
many others err in assuming that the Greek 
language had not a word that would express 
the idea of baptize. The Greek language had 
a word that exactly expressed the action of the 



CONTROVERSY ENDED. 85 

rite. What needs to be done is to give to the 
word its appropriated signification, as in angel, 
church, or eat, or drink, at the Lord's supper. 

3. There was a necessity^ that, in the institu- 
tion of a rite — a positive command — words 
should be used in their common, familiar use; 
else how could they be correctly understood 
by those to whom they were addressed? The 
epistles were written in Greek — were ad- 
dressed to many who spoke nothing but 
Greek — Greek, not with a Jewish or peculiar 
import, but in its secular, common, and classic 
import. 

4. All ground for controversy is ended by 
the certain fact that haptizo w^as used in its 
sacredj as in its common and classic use, to 
denote dtp^ immerse. Turn to 2 Kings v, 14, 
" Naaman went down and (ehapihato) immersed 
himself seven times in Jordan." Oar transla- 
tion has it ^^ dipped himself." Here, the word 
referring as it does to action^ our translators 
translate it ^^dip," and correctly so. Where 
the context looks to the result ^ end to be at- 
tained, they sometimes use ^Svash" in the 
sense of cleanse, purify.. 



86 TABAL. 

That the word, as used in 2 Kings v, 14, 
means immerse is rendered certain from the 
fact that the corresponding Avord in Hebrew 
(tahal)^ translated into the Septuagint by 
bai^tisato^ means not to zuasli in general, but 
specifically means ^^ to dlp^ to dip in, to im- 
merse.'' These are the only meanings given 
by Gesenius. 

Theodore Beza says : " The word for bap- 
tizing (which, indeed, if you look at the term 
itself) corresponds with the Hebrew (tahcd) 
immerse, rather than (^rahatz) wash, formerly 
used by the sacred writers in the new mys- 
tery, and for so many ages afterwards, by the 
tacit consent of ail the Churches." "Nor, 
indeed, does haptizein signify to wash, unless 
by consequence; for it properly means to 
immerse." 

Schleusner says : "'Baptizo properly means 
to immerse, to dip in, to merge into water. 
It answers to the Hebrew word tahcd'' 

Moses Stuart, in his book on baptism, 
affirms that, "in all the Mosaic ritual, the 
Hebrew word tahal is never used to designate 
wash in general, but is used specificaU^ to de- 



TABAL. 87 

note the action of dip, dip into, or immerse;" 
and he refers to Lev. iv, 6; xi, 32; xiv, 16; 
Ex. xii, 22; Num. xiv, 18. 

This use, then, of the word in 2 Kings y^ 
14, fixes the sacred import of haptizo as radi- 
cally the same as in the secular or classical 
Greek. 

Moses Stuart translates the word ehap- 
tisato^ as here used, by the words " plunged 
himself." (See his work on Christian Bap- 
tism, p. 66.) 

Dr. Wise, a scholarly Israelite, has shown 
that Fuerst, in giving definitions to tahal^ made 
a mistake in the root from which he derived 
it, and adds : 

^^Tabal is always follou't-.d with hpfh attached to 
the fluid, and Dr. Fiiersi: himseh gives the defini- 
tion, like others, of the preposition 6e, to signify 
most extensively in clos^ribing the thing at rest in 
regard to time, space, or other circumstances. The 
water, the blood, the oil, or any other fluid to which 
the be is prefixed, must be at 7'est, which is cer- 
tainly not thf^ case ii the water, etc., wets or is 
poured upoi- t..o linger or any other solid bodj^ In 
his Bibl'j wcrk Dr. Fuerst f>;'>^^ by this point with- 
out remark, tM)(] ^''uisUites taouc to dip, to dip in, 
to immerse, as others do." 



88 RELIGIOUS USE. 

It is worthy of note that the Jews now, in 
translating the Greek of the New Testament 
into Hebrew, inva.ria.bly translate haptizo by 
the Hebrew word tabciL Also, when they 
now baptize a proselyte, they immerse, never 
sprinkle or pour. They know the meaning of 
tahaL 

Again : In the Septuagint translation of 
the Old Testament, as in Isaiah xxi, 4, we 
again find the word baptize. " Horror (Z>«/> 
tizci)^ baptizes, overwhelms me." Here the 
word can not mean wash nor purify, and yet 
is used as a ^'i-eligious term," and as such it 
means submerge, overwhelm. These cases 
show that the word in its sacred, as in its clas- 
sical use, means immerse, submerge. Facts 
in the history of the sacred usage of the word 
show that a change of the word from specific 
to generic, a change in which the word passed 
from immerse to purify in general, is absurd, 
yea, impossible. 

It is manifest and conceded that Icqjfo^ as 
used in passages like Leviticus xi, 32; xiv, 
15, 16; iv, 6; 1 Samuel xiv, 27, clearly 
means to immerse; and haphzo^ which is still 



CHANGE ABSURD. 89 

more speciliCj means a complete immersion, as 
seen in 2 Kings v, 14; and that the words in 
these instances were used to designate immer- 
sions as distinguished fi*om other modes of 
purifications, as washing of hands, sprinkling 
of water of separation, of blood and oil. Now 
that these words, whilst thus being used daily 
to designate the specific act immerse, should at 
tire very same time lose their specific import, 
pass to a generic use, and come to mean to 
purify in any way, is manifestly absurd. We 
might as well say that the w^ords dip, pour, 
and sprinkle, or their corresponding terms in 
Hebrew, as used in Leviticus ix, 5-12, for the 
purpose of designating the three specific acts 
of dipping, pouring, and sprinkling, did ac- 
quire, from this use of them^ a new significa- 
tion, in which all reference to mode was lost. 
Such could not have been. The very ambi- 
guity and confusion, which w^ould have arisen 
from such use of the word, w^ould ha,ve for- 
bidden it. The position of Mr. Beecher is 
therefore a,bsurd. 

Still more absurd is the position of Mr. 

Heaton when he assumes that in ^*^New Testa- 

7 



90 BAPTISM FROM THE DEAD. 

Ill en t usage the word haptizo usually, if not 
invariably, signifies sprinkle or wet with a 
little water" (page 4); — that is, a word in the 
same period of time may denote two dissimilar 
and specific acts — immerse and sprinkle. 

To show change in the religious use of the 
wor'd haptizo^ frequent references are made to 
the text found in Ecclesiasticus xxxiv, 25 : 
^/Ile (hap)tizomenos) dipping himself (^apo 
nelcroii) from a dead" (body) ^^and touching 
it again, what is he profited {to loiitro aiitoii) 
by his bath ?" The phrase dipped from, is like 
that already referred to, "Dipping from large 
casks of wine" (page 17), or like the phrase 
"dipping from the blood." (Lev. xvi, 16; 
iv, 17.) 

The sentence^ as is conceded, is elliptical. 
That which was to be removed was not the 
dead body, but the defilement contracted by 
having touched the dead body. The mode of 
cleansing is here indicated, not merely by the 
word baptizomenos^ but as done in a bath, the 
bath indicating not the action^ but that in which 
the action, the dipping, was performed ; and so 
Cremer defines loiitron as here used. 



J. H. BECKWITH. 91 

Under the Mosaic law the full process for 
cleansing from defilement from touching a 
dead body is described; as seen in Numbers 
xix, 13—19. The defiled man was shut out 
from society, ^Svater of separation" was 
sprinkled upon him the third and seventh 
days, and he was required to wash his clothes 
and " hatlie himself in water" — ''so shall he 
be clean." Rev. J. H. Beckwith, referring to 
the two cases just cited, and taking a part for 
the whole, concludes that the purification is 
called a baptism (when the baptism was only 
the completing part of the process), and as- 
sumes that the " manner of the baptism was by 
sprinkling," whereas the context shows that 
the sprinkling (and that not of simple water^ 
as he now uses) was but a part of the pro- 
cess ; also, that the whole process was com- 
pleted by a bath — "hathe his flesh, and so 
shall he be clean." 

As we infer from a brief extract taken from 
one of the lectures of Professor John Morgan, 
of Oberlin, Ohio, he takes a similar position. 
And so of Bishop Merrill In reference to 
this passage he says, " The real baptism was 



92 MANNER OF BATHING. 

the sprinkling," yet admits that the '^bathing 
of the man's flesh was required," but insists 
that '^ there is not any probability that the 
bathing included an immersion." We insist 
there is. 

1. As seen in the word ^'haptizomenos!' 
This, a form of haptizo^ properly and naturally 
means dipping, immersing. 

2. The " to louirol' the bath, as a noun, des- 
ignates not action, but the thing in which the 
action was performed. 

3. The word used (^rahatz) designates the 
bathing of the whole body. 

4. To this may be added a description of 
baths and Va^ process of hathing^ as maintained 
among the Jews from time immemorial. 

Any man who can read Hebrew readily, or 
do as I, get a friend to help him, and turn to 
the Mishna, the book of Jewish laws and cus- 
toms, may there see a description of a Jewish 
bath and the manner of bathing. Under the 
heading Miqroath^ and in chnpter fourth, he 
Avill find a description of the Miqvah or ritual 
bath. This must be a pool in the earth ; or^ 
if a tank or baptistery, it must be filled with 



MANNER OF BATHING. 93 

runninGT water in contradistinction from stand- 
ing or stagnant water, and the Miqvah or 
bath " must not be less than a cubit square, 
nor less than three and a half cubits deep " — 
enough for the submergence of the whole per- 
son. Then the law says : " Every thing that 
becomes unclean, either man or things^ can not 
become clean, unless (d^d3 nV:i£53 hethelah ha- 
mayim^ dipped in water." (Ch. 1, sec. 1 — sim- 
ilar to the law as given in Leviticus xi, 32.) 

Again: "Whenever washing his flesh and 
washing his garments are mentioned in the 
law, it does not mean any thing else but 
(nip5p2 f]uri ^3 nS^Dcp thelath Jcal hagiif hamiqvali) 
dip his whole body in the Miqvah — bath. (Ch. 
1, section 2.) 

Again : " Every one who takes a bath 
(nn^Nt ri33 t^un h2 Si'atp;^ iin,^ zaricli seyiihol Jcal 
hdgiifbehath acliaili)^ must dip his whole body 
at once." (Ch. 1, section 7.) 

The Mishna, the book containing these 
laws, was written as early as the second cent- 
ury, and was the unwritten law for ages 
previously. 

Dr. Wise, a learned Hebrew, and minister 



94 MANNER OF BATHING. 

of the Temple service in Cincinnati, Ohio, 
says : '^ There were various kinds of ritual 
baths among the ancient Hebrev^s, all how- 
ever in forty kab of flowing water. One was 
the bath of penitents — one the bath of the 
proselytes. John sent his candidates into 
the Jordan to be cleansed of their moral lep- 
rosy, like Naaman ; and exactly as the mod- 
ern rabbi sends the proselyte penitent to the 
Mikvar To this, he says : ^^ Jewish women 
yet go ;" according to the law in Leviticus 
twelfth and fifteenth chapters. Also ^^ to this 
goes every pious Israelite on the eve of the 
day of atonement." (See American Israelite, 
July 26, 1878.) 

These descriptions of processes show the 
nature of a Jewish bath and the manner of 
bathing — not by " sprinkling a little water on 
the head," nor by washing from a quart basin, 
but submerging the whole body in water. 

Some have suggested as a difficulty, the 
want of water in the wilderness. We reply: 

1. The ceremonial law was not enforced 
on all in the wilderness — circumcision is an 
illustration. 



ASSUMPTION. 95 

2. To Aaron and all those who entered the 
sanctuary^ the bath was a necessity. (See 
Num. xix^ 13; Lev. xv, 31.) 

As we understand them, a brief presenta- 
tion of the positions of the men just referred 
to, is : Fh^st. They assume that baptism des- 
ignates the whole process of purifying, and 
therefore means purify. Second, As sprinkle 
is the leading feature of the process, it shall 
be called baptism — '^ the sprinkling is the real 
baptism." Third. The action of the baptism 
shall be sprinkling simple w^ater as the symbol 
of purification, wdien the ash^ the only ele- 
ment of the sprinkling that represented puri- 
fication, is left out. Though projected by 
good men, the positions are so ridiculous and 
preposterous as to seldom find a parallel. 

We may now pass to the instance of cere- 
monial purifications, referred to in the New 
Testament. We begin with Mark vii, 3, 4, 8: 
" The Pharisees and all the Jews, except they 
wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tra- 
ditions of the elders. And when they come 
from the market, except they w\ash, they eat 
not. And many other things . . . they 



96 MARK vii, 3, 4. 

holdj as the washing of cups, and pots, and 
brazen vessels and tables." 

That our present translation does not give 
a correct representation of the original and 
inspired word is manifest from the fact that 
the Greek word, iiipsontai^ as seen in verse 3, 
and haptizontai^ as seen in verse 4, are both 
translated by the same English word ^^ wash/' 
when, as is well known, nifto properly desig- 
nates only partial washing, as of hands or feet, 
whilst haptizo designates the immersion of the 
whole hody^ a complete immersion. 

From our present version, many persons 
might infer that the Pharisee did no more on 
coming from the market than when rising 
from his seat in the house — wash his hands — 
alike in both cases. If this had been true, 
then we ask, Why the reference to the com- 
ing from the market^ and why the use of two 
different words? 

Lange pertinently remarks : '^ There is 
here an evident progression. At all times the 
Jews, before eating, washed their hands; but 
after return from the market, where there was 
so much danger of coming in contact with un- 



MANNER OF ^SVASHING." 97 

clean men" (and dead bodies), ^Hhe bath was 
used as a washing of the whole body." 

Meyer says : '' Moreover, ean me haptizon- 
tai is not to be understood of ivashing the 
hands (Lightfoot, Wetstein), but of immersion^ 
wdiich the word in classic Greek, and in the 
New Testament, CA^ery-where means (compare 
Bezel) ; i. e,^ here, according to the context, to 
take a hath. So also Luke xi, 38." 

Grotius, speaking of those Pharisees who 
come from the market, says: ^' They not only 
wash their hands, but immerse their bodies." 

Hands were washed, as Maimonides tells 
us, by pouring on water — thus ^^by the power 
of a man " — and this from a vessel w^hich con- 
tains a pint of water. The six water-pots re- 
ferred to in John ii, 6, w^ere not for washing 
hands in them, else soon defiled; but as a sup- 
ply from whence to dip out and pour on. But 
the bathing of the body Wf^s in a miqvah — 
bath. 

That the ceremonial cleansing of persons 
w\as by dipping, immersing the person in wa- 
ter, is rendered still more certain by the fact 
that haptismous^ a form of the same word used 



98 ''* TABLES "=BEDS. 

to designate the purification of the body, is in 
the context used to designate the purification 
of the CHIOS. These were purified by dipping 
in water. (See Lev. xi, 32.) As translated 
from the Hebrew^ we have ^'put in water." 
As written in the Greek of the Septuagint, 
we have {eh Jmdor haphcsetai) "dipped into 
water'' (See also Num. xxxi, 23.) This is 
authority enough. But like to this is the 
testimony of Maimonides. ^'He who buys a 
vessel from a gentile for eating" (table use), 
'^either of metals or glass or glazed vessels, 
although they be new, they must be dipped in 
a miqvah or well, which contains the amount 
of forty sooh of water." (Law concerning 
the dipping of vessels, ch. 120, sec. 1.) 

The same was true of vessels made by the 
Jews. '^ Care is to be taken about them; lo ! 
these must be dipped." Dr. Edward Beecher 
says : " These were immersed." (Page 36.) 

"TABLES," BEDS. 

If the cups were immersed (and they 
were), then the '' tables," couches, beds were, 
for the same word that designates the purifi- 



a 



TABLES "=BEDS. 99 



cation {dipping) of the one, designates the 
purification^ the immersion of the other. 

Tlie word which in our version is trans- 
lated '^ table " is Jdinon. from Jcline^ which 
means ''a Icd^' "couch^'' '^any thing on which 
one reclines." (Robinson.) 

Liddell and Scott give the same meaning. 
Neither give ''table''' as a meaning. 

Smith says: ^^ The substantive portion of 
the bed was limited to a mere mat, or one or 
more quilts." (See his Bible Diet., Art. Bed.) 

Kitto and Professor Hackett give a like 
definition. '^'Blankets or pallets" — such as 
the paralytic had when our Lord said to him, 
" Take up thy (Jclinhi) hed^ and go unto thy 
house." (Matt, ix, 6.) 

^^In nine other instances this word is ren- 
dered bed, and should be so rendered here." 
(Hackett.) Such would be easily dipped. 

If there be here any allusion to the wooden 
frame on which mats, beds were spread, even 
these were cleansed by immersion in water. 
Maimonides says : " If dipped part by part, it 
is pure." Again : ^^ Every vessel of wood, as 
a table or bed, if defiled, these were washed 



100 LUKE XI, 38. 

by covering in water, «and very nice and par- 
ticular were they that these might be covered 
all over." (Turney.) 

Like to the exposition of Mark vii, 4^ is 
that of Luke xi, 38 : ^^And when the Phari- 
see saw it he marveled that he (Christ) had 
not first washed before dinner." 

The word here translated ^^ washed" is 
ehaptisthe — dipped — bathed. If washed or 
purified be taken, they should be taken only 
as resultant meanings. 

It is sometimes asked, Were there suitable 
places for such bathing? 

Smith says : "A. bathing chamber was 
probably included in houses even of no great 
rank in cities from early times. (2 Sam. ii, 2.) 
Much more in those of the wealthy in latter 
times; often in gardens. (Susan, 15.)" 

Josephus. speaking concerning the Essenes, 
says : " They labor until the fifth hour; then 
having clothed themselves in a white veil, 
they bathe themselves in cold water." Con- 
cerning the women, he says : ^^Now the women 
go into the bath with some of their clothes on, 
as the with somewhat girded about them." 



LUKE XI, 38. 101 

(Hist, of the Jews, B. 2 ch. viii, sees. 5 and 
13.) These fiicts show provision for bathing 
and bathing before meals. 

Again we are asked : " Is it probable the 
Pharisee would have expected of Jesus such a 
cleansing before dinner?" We answer^ that was 
just what a Pharisee, with his scrupulous no- 
tions of physical purity, would have expected 
of such a teacher as our Lord. Dr. Slier says : 
'^It was, generally speaking, customary before 
meals^ especially for guests at a feast, to enter 
the bath." Barnes sa3^s : '' Christ had been 
amom>: the mixed multitude, and the Pharisees 
esteemed the touch of such persons polluting." 
■ Maimonides tells us there was a class of 
Jews whose eating was as pure as that of the 
Levites. If these but touched the victuals or 
cups or clothes of the common people, they 
were defiled and needed to purify themselves. 
(See Aboth Hatumah^ ch. xiii, sec. 1.) 

At this time, in India, if one touches an- 
other of a different cast, he immediately 
cleanses by bathing. Similar to these were 
the fastidious notions of the Pharisees. 

Like to the preceding is the exposition of 



102 HEBREW ix, lO. 

Hebiews ix, 10 : ^^ Which stood in meats and 
drinRs and divers washings." Mr. Beecher in- 
sists that the word haptismois^ as here used, 
should be transhxted '' purifications ;" and 
that these purifications were performed in va- 
rious waySj, even by washings, sprinklings, or 
immersions. We reply : '' The purifications 
were mixm^Q^ilj ceremonial ; and as such were 
performed, as the word and facts indicate, by 
immersions. 

As an objection to this, it is said : " The 
purifications referred to were under the law; 
and these were enjoined by the use of generic 
terms, as raliatz in Hebrew, and louo in Greek." 
We reply : 

1. The word raliatz is generic enough to 
include a scrubbing in water so as to remove 
positive filth. Also, and still more common, 
it is used to designate a mere dipping or bath- 
ing for ceremonial purposes; as when one had 
touched a bone or a grave or one of a differ- 
ent caste, and when no positive filth was to be 
removed. There were times when each end 
would need to be attained, and proper that a 
word that might designate either, be used. 



MANNER OF WASHING. 103 

2. This word, as a word of action, never 
means sprinkle or pour — never designates a 
totally dissimilar act. 

3. The word never designates a partial 
washiniz:, as of hands or feet, unless these are 
specified, and then they are covered all over, 
even if by pouring on w^ater. 

The objects referred to by Paul w^ere not 
hands or feet, but persons. These, w^hen de- 
filed, were regarded as defiled all over^ and 
the whole person needed a ceremonial cleans- 
ing. Bathing, submersion of the w^hole body, 
would be the most natural and effective way 
to attain this end. Mr. Beecher himself saj^s : 
" When the washing of the body or the flesh 
is enjoined, if most convenient, it would be 
done by immersion or bathing," page 33. 
Such was convenient. For this, each congre- 
gation had its Miqvah. 

4. Facts as previously shown, indicate that 
the manner of washing was by submerging 
the whole body. We may add the high au- 
thority of Castelle : " Though the washing 
under the law w^as enjoined by the Hebrew 
word raliatz^ yet that ablution of men is done 



104 NAAMAN DIPPED. 

only by an immersion of the whole body in wa- 
ter." Ainsw^orth says : '' By the Hebrew canons 
all that are unclean^ whether men or vessels, 
are not cleansed but by dipping or baptizing in 
water. And wheresoever the lawspeaketh of 
washing a man's flesh, or washing of clothes 
from uncleannesSj it is not but by dipping the 
whole body therein." 

The case of Naaman is pertinent. Though 
told to go '" wash/' bathe, in Jordan, yet the 
nature of the washing — manifestly ceremo- 
nial — the manner of it, seven times in Jordan, 
together with usage — all would indicate to 
Naaman a specific manner of washing — that 
of dipping himself This he did, and the 
prophet very naturally used a specific term to 
indicate the manner of the washing; and just 
so Paul, seeing the specific manner in which 
the purifications were performed, used in 
the Greek Lmgnage the corresponding specific 
word haptismois^ indicating the manner of the 
washing or purification — an immersion. 

5. Such are some of the Biblical descrip- 
tions of some of the purifications that we know 
they were by immersions. See Lev. xi, 32 : 



HEBREW IX, lO. 105 

^^ Putting into water." Num. xxxi^ 23: 
^^ Passing through water." 

7. The same word here employed in He- 
brew ix, 10, is employed in Mark yu^ 4, and^ 
as we showed^ was there used to denote im- 
mersions. 

8. The washing or cleansing of a proselyte 
before admittance into the Jewish worship 
was effected by an immersion or submersion of 
the whole body. 

"The candidate for baptism, after having been 
healed of his wound, was strijDped of all his clothes 
in the presence of three witnesses who had acted 
as his teachers, and who acted now as his sponsors, 
the fathers of the proselyte, and led into the tank 
or pool. As he stood there tip to his neck in water, 
they repeated the great commandments of the law. 
These he promised and vowed to keep, and then, 
with an accompanying benediction, he plunged under 
the water. To leave one hand's breadth of the body 
unsubmerged would have been to vitiate the whole 
rite." (See Smith's Bible Dictionary, art. Prose- 

lyte.) 

Alford^ speaking of proselyte baptism^ 

says : 

^' The baptism was administered in the day- 
time, by immersing of the whole person," and adds : 

8 



106 DIAPHOROIS. 

''It is most probable that John's baptism in out- 
ward form resembled that of proselytes." 

9. There were abundant provisions for the 
bathings of the priests. The lavers of the 
Temple contained forty baths^ or four bushels 
of water^and were ten in number^ besides the 
great brazen sea. " The sea was for the 
priests to wash in." See 2 Chron. iv, 6. 

The high-priest was on the day of Atone- 
ment required to '^^Avash his flesh/' bathe in 
water. Lev. xvi, 4, 24; and we have Tal- 
mudic authority for saying that on that day 
he dipped himself five times. ^^On the eve 
of the same day devout Israelites now dip." 

Mr. Beecher insists that the word (diapho- 
m^) 5 divers, must indicate purifications es- 
sentially different in their nature : as one by 
sprinkling, another by washing, and another 
by immersion. We reply : 

The word may be used to designate objects 
or acts of same nature, but different in deorree 
or design. Thus " one star differeth from an- 
other ;" not in nature — still a star — " but in 
glory," in brightness. So tliere may be many 
dippings of cups, pots, couches, men, and for 



SPRINKLING. .' 107 

different causes of defilement. So Bloomfleld 
understands the word; so did some of the 
Fathers. 

We come^ then, to the conclusion that the 
purifications here referred to by Paul, whether 
of persons or things, were, as the word, rea- 
son, and facts indicate, by dippings, immer- 
sions in water. 

SPRINKLING. 

There are two other Old Testament Scrip- 
tures supposed to give a prophetic endorse- 
ment of sprinkling as a mode of baptism under 
the New Testament dispensation. The first 
is Ezekiel xxxvi, 25 : ^'Then will I sprinkle 
clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean : 
from all your filthiness and from all your 
idols will I cleanse you." 

Many suppose the text has reference espe- 
cially to the Gospel dispensation, and is a dec- 
laration of the mode of Christian baptism 
under that dispensation. By reference to the 
connection, the reader will see that^the chil- 
dren of Israel were then in their captivity. 
The nations around had become skeptical and 



108 SPRINKLING. 

insolent. See verses 3, 6, and 23. God 
had decreed, for his name's sake, to bring 
Israel back. "I Avill take you from among 
the heathen, and gather you from all coun- 
tries, and bring you into your own land." 
Verse 24. '' Then will I sprinkle clean wa- 
ter upon you" — part of the ceremonial cleans- 
ing from pollution, see Num. viii, 7; xix, 19,— 
^^from all your filthiness and from all your 
idols will I cleanse you." Israel returned with 
Judah. See Ezra ii, 70; iv, 3; vi, 16, 17; 
viii, 35 ; x, 25. Grod had written his law on 
their hearts, and had given them hearts of 
flesh, of penitence. See Ezra x, 2, 3. The 
ceremonial cleansing, of which the sprinkling 
the ^^pure water" or ^^ water of purification" 
was a part, was the symbol of their moral 
purification. 

The Hebrew phrase mayim tahorim^ Ezek. 
xxxvi, 25, does not mean pure water in the 
sense of clear, fresh water, as is often assumed. 
That in Hebrew is expressed by the words 
mayim hayim^ not mayim tahorim. This latter 
designates the " water of separation," a fluid 
made from fresh water and ashes of a red 



SPRINKLING. 109 

heifer. For use of the word, see Numbers 
viii, 7; also xix, 12, 19. 

If this water of purifying was literally ap- 
plied, it was to returning Jews, not to peni- 
tents under the Gospel dipensation. 

The most plausible view is, that the Holy 
Spirit, in the use of the words, had no allusion 
to any literal use of the water of purifying, 
but simply used these words metonymically, 
as a mode of saying I will cleanse you from 
your idolatry, all uncleanness. So Paul used 
similar words : " Hearts sprinkled," cleansed 
^^from an evil conscience" — not literally 
sprinkled. 

Barnes, referring to this passage in Ezekiel, 
says, "The practice of sprinkling with con- 
secrated water is referred to as synonymous 
with purifying." 

We repeat, if the passage be construed 
literally, then the "water of purifying'' was to 
be applied to returning Jews, and not to 
converts under the New Testament dispensa- 
tion. It is true, pre-eminently true, that God, 
under the Gospel dispensation, intended to 
give to converts a " new spirit," " hearts of 



110 SPRINKLING. 

flesh ;" but there is not the slightest evidence 
thatj in this connection^ the prophet had any 
allusion to baptism, much less to any mode of 
baptism. To say so is sheer assumption, un- 
warranted by any thing in the words or 
context. It is a weakness in any man to 
assume that these words refer to Christian 
baptism. 

The remaining passage in the Old Testa- 
ment, supposed to refer to sprinkling as a mode 
of baptism, is Isaiah lii, 15: "So shall he 
[Christ] sprinkle many nations." The lan- 
guage, to subserve the purpose claimed, must 
be used literally. We reply : 

1. As a matter of fact, Christ did not liter- 
ally sprinkle " many nations^ He haptizedy 
through his disciples, a few of one nation. 

2. The word is not a form of the Hebrew 
word zaraq^ to sprinkle, as found in Ezekiel 
xxxvi, 25; Numbers xix, 13 ; Exodus xxiv, 
6 ; but is yezza^ from nazah, which, according to 
Gesenius, means "to leap for joy," "to ex- 
ult." "The primary idea is that of flying 
out." When applied to fluids, the idea of 
leaping forth is still retained, and means to 



SPRINKLING. Ill 

sprinkle^ cause particles to leap forth ; but 
when applied to mind^ as in the case before 
uSj it can not mean scatter in particles, but 
means " to leap for joy, to exult." 

Barnes, in his exposition of the text, using 
the word metonymically, says it here is 
equivalent to purify or justify, and adds : 
"Whether it means purify or exult, it fur- 
nishes no argument for the practice of sprink- 
ling in baptism. It refers not to the ordinance 
of Christian baptism." We are clear in the 
conviction that the word has no reference to 
baptism, and that it does not primarily refer 
to justification or purification, but, as Gesenius 
defines it, means "to cause to leap for joy," 
"to exult, rejoice." He refers to the passage, 
and thus translates it: "So shall he cause 
many nations to rejoice in himself." Against 
the common interpretation "to sprinkle," Ge- 
senius presents these objections : 

1. " That the v>^ord could not be construed 
with the accusative, and that if it means that 
he would sprinkle wdth blood, the word blood 
would be specified." 

2. "That the connection is opposed to the 



112 SPRINKLING. 

idea of sprinkling; that the antithesis requires 
some word that shall agree with (shammn) 
^ shall be astonished;' that the phrase ^ cause 
many to rejoice' is such an antithesis." So 
Rosenmuller and others. 

If the reader will notice the connection, he 
will see that there is no allusion to baptism, 
nor to purification ; but there is a contrast 
drawn — that as his [Christ's] visage was so 
marred that many were astonished, " struck 
dumb/' at his appearance of sorrow and de- 
basement, so many shall exult, leap for joy, 
at ^is exaltation. "My servant shall be ex- 
alted and extolled,^ and shall be very high." 
Verse 13. ^^ Kings then shall shut their 
mouths at him," or before him. Verse 15. 
^^ Nations shall w^onder with admiration." So 
the Septuagint renders it — thaumasonti^ to be 
astonished Avith admiration, to exult, to praise. 

Doubtless, this version was the version the 
Ethiopian was reading when Philip met him, 
for this version had been made as much as 
two hundred and eighty years prior to that 
time, was the popular version, and was the 
version from which the Ethiopic was afterward 



SPRINKLING. 113 

made. In this there was no allusion to sprink- 
lings only to exultation^ praise. So in the 
Hebrew, as we have seen. Bishop Merrill 
therefore errs when he assumes that " sprink- 
ling was in the text from which Philip was 
preaching to the eunuch." All that inspira- 
tion says is that ^^he/' Christ, ^^ shall cause 
many nations to leap for joy." 



114 ATTENDANT DESCRIPTIONS. 



Chapter VII. 

ATTENDANT DESCRIPTIONS. 

NOT imfrequently^ eA^en when philological im- 
port and common usage render the meaning 
of a word measurably certain, we may find addi- 
tional certainty and strength in the context — 
attendant descriptions. This is true of hap- 
tizo. Take as an example^ the words : " More- 
over, brethren, I would not that y^ should be 
ignorant how that our fathers were under the 
cloud, and all passed through the sea ; and 
were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and 
in the sea." 1 Cor. x, 1, 2. 

The most natural and obAnous way in 
which to construe this passage is, to interpret 
the baptism, not as a mere spiritual consecra- 
tion or purification unto Moses, but a literal 
baptism, including an actual material submer- 
sion; for the immediate declaration is ^^ the 
fathers were under the cloudy and passed through 
the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in 
the cloud and in the sea,'' The cloud and the 



BAPTIZED UNTO MOSES. 115 

sea were the instrumental enveloping media of 
their haptism. The baptism was not the Chris- 
tian rite, but was nevertheless a baptism^ a 
transaction shoAving the nature of a baptism; 
just as animals are said to be baptized when 
Avithin the banks of a river, and the tide rolls 
over them, submerges them. (See page 18.) 
So here. These fathers, thus submerged, are 
properly said to be baptized. Moreover, in 
the text before us, the word is used in a 
broader sense than a mere submersion. It 
includes a consecration. The fathers not only 
passed through the sea, under the cloud, but 
were thereby consecrated to Moses as their 
leader ; just as Christians are by their baptism 
devoted thereby to Christ their Lord. 

In the case before us we use the word sub- 
merge, instead of immerse, because here the 
fathers were passive — the cloud descended 
upon them as the Holy Spirit is conceived as 
descending on the apostles on the day of Pen- 
tecost. Either actively or passively, ^^intus- 
position^' is the state implied by the use of 
the word. There was then a transaction; and 
the transaction shows the nature of a baptism ; 



116 BURIED BY BAPTISM. 

and. to call any other dissimilar transaction 
baptism is a misnomer — a confounding of terms. 
The design of the allusion to baptism here 
seems to have been to give a warning against 
the seductive influences of idolatry, and 
against a presumptive trust in the mere fiict 
of a divine recognizance. Baptism was at 
that time attended by divine recognitions. 
When our Lord was baptized, there was a 
voice from heaven. When the disciples at 
Ephesus were baptized, bestowment of gifts 
followed. These Christians at Corinth had 
had their baptism and the bestowment of 
gifts; yet the apostle reminds them, ^^Your 
fathers had the passover " — '^ a divine recog- 
nition in their baptism in the cloud and in the 
sea;" and yet they fell — ^^Hhey sat down to 
eat and rose up to play " — " Take heed lest 
ye fall." (See verses 6-12.) Reader, trifle 
not with God's mercies, nor with his institu- 
tions — authority. 

BURIED BY BAPTISM. 

" Shall we continue in sin that grace may 
abound? God forbid. How shall we, who 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. 117 

died unto sin^ live any longer therein ? Know 
ye not that so many of us as were baptized 
into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death ? 
Therefore we were buried with him by bap- 
tism into death : that like as Christ was raised 
up from the dead by the glory of the Father^ 
even so we also should walk in newness of 
life." Rom. vi, 1-4. 

There are three interpretations of this pas- 
sage. One is. that by the word baptism^ with 
its implied spiritual consecration, there was 
allusion to the well-known visible rite, by 
which Christians made profession of their faith 
in Christ ; and that by this baptism they were 
buried. 

Another idew is, that the word was here 
used figuratively, denoting simply the spirit- 
ual state of believers — " purified into Christ " — 
^^ buried by purification into his death." 

A third view is, that the word baptism des- 
ignates the ^^act of administration without 
indicating the mode f and that whilst the ac- 
tion is the well-known " visible rite, the burial 
is spiritual." 

A proper exposition of the text will deter- 



118 BURIED BY BAPTISM. 

mine the correct view. In this exposition we 
will be greatly aided if we shall get before our 
minds the object of the apostle in writing this 
part of the Epistle. In the preceding chapter 
the apostle had affirmed " that where sin 
abounded grace did much more abound." He 
now anticipates an objection, ^Hhat if this 
doctrine of grace be true, then we may go on 
in sin, that God may have more opportunities 
for pardon." The apostle immediately pro- 
ceeds to show the absurdity of the conclusion, 

1. By reference to the fact that we Chris- 
tians ^^ died to sin;" and as such, could not 
be presumed to live any longer therein. 

2. This death to sin was manifested under 
such circumstances that even an objector 
ought to have recognized it. 

To show this, the apostle immediately 
reverts to their baptism — a baptism in which 
they had not only professed faith in Christ as 
their Savior from sin, but also death with him 
to sin^ and a resurrection to newness of life. To 
be a pertinent reply, to such an objector, the 
baptism referred to, must have been visible — 
must have included the well-known visible rite. 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. 119 

A mere reference to the conscious spiritual state 
of the Christians Avould have been no reply to 
such an objector. Of this conscious spiritual 
state the objector could have known nothing. 
The baptism then must have been the well- 
known visible rite. 

3. The tense employed shows that the 
baptism referred to included the well known 
visible rite. The tense employed refers not to 
a then existing spiritual state, however real and 
blessed, but to a past completed action. The 
tense employed is the aorist, which does not 
express a ^^ continued effect/' as Bishop Mer- 
rill afl&rms, but the opposite — past completed 
action. Winer says : " The aorist merely 
states matters of fixct as having taken place." 
Buttman says : " It expresses that which is 
momentary in time past." 

The death, baptism, and burial are all 
written in the aorist tense. The death, then, 
was a completed event. The word baptized, 
indicated w^hen it was, i. ^., fully actualized. 
The penitent had resolved to leave all for 
Christ. Whether he would really do so was 
not yet actualized. He might yet not do 



120 BURIED BY BAPTISM. 

what he had purposed to do— separate him- 
self from the world^, and phmt himself defi- 
nitely in the Lord's Kingdom. Baptism 
settled this to his own soul and in the appre- 
hension of others. 

This, doubtless, is the reason why baptism 
is so closely associated with salvation. " He 
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." 
Not that baptism is a deed that in itself 
merits salvation, but is a first fruit of a long 
harvest of deeds of obedience that actualizes 
to the believer and others what is the real 
condition of the believer. The baptism, then, 
was the well known visible rite. The apostle 
did not here use the word baptize, as men 
now often do, by separating the external from 
the internal, but used the word as our Lord 
did the word confess, -^ — ^'Whosoever shall 
confess me before men, him will I confess 
before my Father which is in heaven" — inclu- 
ding not the mere lip-service, nor the mere 
spiritual consecration, but both. In the same 
way the apostle refers to the Lord's supper — 
" The bread we eat, is it not the communion of 
the body of Christ?" — that is, there is an 



lUJKIED \\Y HArriSiM. 121 

actual oiillwix of broad; and by faith an aotnal 
feeding upon biiii in spirit. Tho two a,io 
beautifully bloudod. So iu baptism. 

And whilst tho spirilual is implied, the 
visible, (he ex(ernal, syml)olizos, sets forth, 
the very nature of the internal. The baptism 
being visible, then the burial is; for we are 
buried by baptism. 

4. With this view a,gree most of our ablest 
commentators and ex[)ositors; as Lange, Tho- 
luek, Wesley, Clarke, Whitby, M'Knight, and 
others. Even l>arnes says : '- It is altogether 
probable tha,t the apostle in this pla,ce ha.d al- 
lusion to the custom of baptizing by immer- 
sion. This^ indeed, can not be proved so as 
to be liable to no ol)jection, but I pi-esume 
this is the idea, that would strike the great 
mass of unprejudiced readers." That which 
the grea( mass of unprtyudiced readers under- 
stand to be true is likely to be the correct 
view. 

Bishop Merrill insists that whilst the bap- 
tism was '^'material;' ''the ordinance estab- 
lished in the Church to be administered by 
use of water," yet the burial was spiritual 



122 BURIED BY BAPTISM. 

and figurative, and this because^as he assumes, 
^^the burial was a part of the same spiritual 
process or experience with the death, cruci- 
fixion and planting." (P. 242.) That the 
burial was a part of the same spiritual process 
with the crucifixion and death, is an assump- 
tion he does not prove. Indeed, his own con- 
cessions must logically and irresistibly drive 
every logical mind to a totally opposite con- 
clusion; for he says : ^^ The burial is effected 
by baptism " — " baptism is the instrument and 
the burial is the result" (p. 247), and by bap- 
tism he does not mean a spiritual state, but 
the material rite. He says : 

"The question will arise as to what baptism is 
intended, whether the outward rite or that of the 
Holy Spirit; but I cheerfally accept the statement 
that the word is to be taken in its most obvious 
sense — that it means the ordinance established in 
the Church, to be administered by the use of water, 
wherever the Gospel is preached. Some insist that 
the baptism of the Spirit is meant, and that wa- 
ter is not in the passage. I make no point of this 
kind." 

This is frank : and we may add, the bap- 
tism including the well-known visible ^^ ordi- 
nance established in the Church, and to be 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. 123 

administered by the use of water/' must be 

that which buries; for, as President Pendleton 

pertinently remarks : 

" Baptism must be taken with buried, to com- 
plete the logical predicate. Paul does not say we 
were buried, simply, but, modally — we were buried 
by baptism. Dr. Merrill is too familiar with the 
logical distinction between a simple and a modal 
predicate to deny that 'by baptism' is a part of 
the process. Therefore, if baptism is literal, then 
buried is literal." 

The president adds : 

" The words ' buried bj baptism' are not merely 
used in the same process, but they stand in the very 
different relation of explaining each other. Buried 
is explained as to the sense in which it is used 
(whether figuratively or literally), and also as to 
the manner of accomplishing it, by the word bap- 
tism ; and, therefore, if the word baptism be used 
literally, the burial or covering up, which is effected 
by it, must be literal." 

The burial then, like the baptism, was more 
than merely spiritual. Like baptism, it was 
external also, and designedly and beautifully 
symbolic. 

The Bishop certainly speaks unworthy of 
a Bishop and fair writer when he represents 
immersionists as '' little short of handling the 



124 " BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST." 

Word of God deceitfully, in restricting the 
crucifixion, death and burial with Christ into 
his death to a sudden dip of the body into 
water and out again." (Page 267.) Can it 
be that the Bishop is unacquainted with his 
neighbors? Does he not know that the large 
body of immersionists teach and maintain the 
spiritual death, burial, and resurrection of the 
baptized believer as certainly and fully as he 
does? If they, in addition, symbolize their 
spiritual burial and resurrection by the action 
of their haptism^ that does not negative or de- 
stroy the spiritual. If, in the Lord's supper, by 
eating and drinking, we symbolize the internal 
and spiritual, that symbolization does not nega- 
tive or destroy the spiritual — only intensifies. 
Another assumption is, " The baptism is not 
baptism into w^ater, but baptism into Christ, 
and baptism into his death ; and that this is the 
baptism that buries, and that this, as Moses 
Stuart says, ^^ is an internal, moral, spiritual 
thing, of Avhich the external rite of baptism is 
only a symbol ; for the relation symbolized 
by baptism is in its own nature spiritual and 
moral." (Page 100.) 



"baptized into CHRIST." 125 

The thing now to be done is to sliow that 
the phrase " baptized into his death" is, in 
its nature and aspect, like ''baptized into 
Christ," — ''baptized into the Father, Son, 
and Holy Spirit;" and that tliis baptism 
included the m^'W^ rite, (he external with the 
internal. 

The reader, by. reverting to the words of 
Ml*. Stuart, will see that he has fallen into tlie 
common error of attempting to make two things 
out of one. At one moment he makes that 
"internal, moral, spiritual thing" baptism; 
and at the next he makes the symbol o^ this 
state the baptism itself — baptism into his 
death is that spiritual thing '^syn^bolized by 
baptism." We reply, the spiritual state is not 
baptism as distinct from the rite. To illus- 
trate : Marriage is not merely the spiritual 
state, ailfection, nor even plighted affection, 
which is betrothal; nor -is marritige the mere 
outward ceremony ; but true marriage exists 
when both are combined. So the immersion 
of a penitent, trusting soul, in the name of the 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is baptism — the 
external implies the internal. 



126 "baptized into christ." 

Again : Mr. Stuart in showing that the 
phrase "baptized into Christ" is, like the 
phrase "baptized into the name of Father, 
Son J and Holy Spirit/' Matt, xxviii, 19 
(where [onomd] name is merely expletive), 
and that this confessedly includes the external 
visible rite, shows that " baptized into Christ " 
includes the external visible rite; and if the 
phrase " baptized into Christ," includes the 
external visible rite, then " baptized into his 
death" does; for these are only two imports 
of the same rite^ baptism \ just as "baptized 
into repentance" and "baptized into remission 
of sins " are two imports of the same rite — 
baptism; as "remembrance of me" and 
"communion of the body of Christ" are but 
two imports of the same rite — the Lord's 
supper. 

To further amplify the thought, we may 
remark, the phrase "baptized into Christ," 
(onoma) name implied, is the same as the 
phrase " baptized into the name of Paul" (1 
Cor. i, 13), where manifestly the baptism 
alluded to, implied the external visible rite. 
So baptized into Christ and into his death did. 



BAPTISM A SYMBOL. 127 

Some, in this connection, say, ^' any use of 
water that inducts into Christ is baptism." 
They might as well say any use of bread (as 
oflfering it)^ — any use of wine (as sprinkling 
it), that brings remembrance of Christ, is the 
Lord's supper : — th?it dissimilar things are the 
same thing. 

We concur with Mr. Stuart when he 
says, " It is in the very nature of this symbol 
to express not merely relation to God, but 
also something of the internal state of the sub- 
ject receiving the symbol." Thus the Lord's 
supper not only symbolizes his broken body 
and shed blood, but also our feeding upon him 
and our common participation with him. So 
in baptism. It symbolizes not merely our re- 
lation to him, but something of our own per- 
sonal, conscious state ; and in the point before 
us not only relation to Christ, but our partici- 
pation with him even in death — not merely 
our disciple state, but also our death state. 
And now we ask. What is there in sprinkling or 
pouring that can symbolize this death state ? Not 
any thing. All that can be claimed for these 
is, that they symbolize purification. If this 



128 OUN ILLATIVE. 

were even true, it is not what we want here. 
What we want here is something that will ex- 
press a deaih date. A burial does this; and, 
as it seems to us, this is just the reason why 
the apostle introduced here the Greek word 
oun^ translated therefore. '^ Therefore we w^ere 
buried with him by baptism into death." Not 
as though the burial was a consequence of the 
baptism, which was true, but the phraseology 
is such as to indicate that the burial was 
recognized as for, and appropriated to, another 
purpose. 

The Greek word oiin^ as here used, is not 
copulative, but, as Robinson suggests, is ^^ il- 
lative," expressing an inference or conclusion 
from *what precedes. That, accordingly, as 
expressive of that death state, we were buried 
not merely {eii) in, but (dia) hy baptism into 
death — into the death relation. 

If the thought be that the burial is only a 
sequence, a necessary result of the baptism, 
then is the illative particle not appropriate 
and the burial not significant; but if the 
burial, as a part of the baptism, like participa- 
tion in the Lord's supper, is designed and 



RESURRECTION. 129 

framed so as to have a symbolic significancy, 
then is the illative particle appropriate and 
the burial significant — worthy of reference. 

We concur with Meyer that not only is a 
burial suggested by the form of the baptism, 
but the idea of a resurrection also; for the 
baptism of one person, devoted thereby to an- 
other person (Christ), implies a resurrection, 
a coming up again to live for him. Even the 
^^ dipping," immersing of Naaman implied this. 

The remark of Bishop Hoadly is pertinent. 
He says : '^If baptism had been then" (in the 
days of the apostles) ^^ performed as it is now 
amongst" (some of) ^^us, we should never 
have so much as heard of this form of expres- 
sion of dying and rising again in this rite." 
(See Hoadly's Works, Vol. Ill, p. 890.) 

Mr. Dale and his admirers cavil, because 
they do not find in the word itself the idea of 
a resurrection. They might as well reject ])ino^ 
to drink, because they see not in the meaning 
of the word the idea of opening the mouth. The 
very design of an action often implies other 
actions.. The design of writing implies taking 
out the pen when Ave shall have dipped it. 



130 RESURRECTION. 

The very design of baptism, of devoting one 
to Christ to live for him, of symbolizing our 
resurrection to a newness of life, implies an 
emergence. Also, when inspiration explains 
the design and implication, there is no room 
for cavil. 

Moses Stuart thinks the apostle had no 
allusion to the mode of baptism, because he 
finds for (simetaphemen) " Ave were buried " no 
corresponding physical antithesis. We re- 
markj if he may supply a moral or spiritual 
resurrection in verse 4, as he does, and as the 
antithesis of a moral, spiritual burial, may he 
not supply a physical, especially since the 
word translated baptize often presupposes a 
resurrection, as when Naaman ^^ dipped him- 
self" in Jordan ? 

2. Just what Moses Stuart asks for in 
Romans vi, 4, Paul supplies in Colossians ii, 
11, Avhere, after referring to the circumqision 
made by Christ without hands, he says : 
" Buried with him in baptism, in which we 
were raised by faith in the power of God, who 
raised him from the dead." 

Mr. Stuart thinks the resurrection referred 



COLOSSIANS II, II. 131 

to in Colossians ii, 11, was only spiritual, be- 
cause, as he supposes, the faith was wrought 
by the power of God, whereas, as Alford and 
others correctly suggest, the power of God 
referred to was in raising Christj and not in 
working faith in the baptized. 

As in the Lord's supper faith concerning 
the broken body and shed blood of our Lord 
prompts to, and presides in, the act of eating 
bread and drinking wine, so faith concerning 
the burial and resurrection of our Lord 
prompts to and abides with us in our burial 
in, and resurrection from the water. 

It may be said the circumcision referred 
to in the preceding verse was manifestly in- 
ternal, spiritual, for it is said to have been 
^^made without hands." If the baptism had 
been declared to have been ^Svithout hands," 
then we would certainly say it was internal, 
spiritual ; but as the word is not thus quali- 
fied, it is fair and just that we use the word 
as it is commonly used. The design of the 
apostle in here introducing baptism is not a 
mere continuance of the spiritual thought, but 
intensifying as well as varying it by allusion 



132 TRUE SOLUTION. 

to the well-known rite, carrying with it, as it 
does, the implied spiritual death and resurrec- 
tion state. 

The true solution, as we suppose, is this : 
there was in the mind of the apostle a rapid 
blending of the spiritual with the material, 
and that, too, Avithout stopping to supply 
ellipses. Of this blending of the spiritual with 
the material we have a beautiful example in 1 
Corinthians x, 16 : " The cup of blessing which 
we bless, is it not the communion of the blood 
of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it 
not the communion of the body of Christ?" 

In the partaking of the bread and wine we 
have a lively representation of suffering and 
love that no abstract language' can present. 
Our sensibilities are stirred ; by faith we see 
the body of our blessed Lord broken for us, 
and his blood shed for the remission of sins ; 
that body becomes dear, that blood precious — 
we feed upon them. Here the material and 
spiritual are beautifully blended. We can 
not separate them, and we might paraphrase 
this passage, and talk of it just as Paul does 
of baptism in his letter to the Colossians — 



u 



PLANTED." , 133 



thus : " Fed in communion, in which we are 
nourished through faith in God, who raised up 
Jesus from the dead." 

We may now remark, the fact that the 
apostle in the sixth, seventh, and eighth verses 
of this chapter refers solely to the spiritual 
state, is no reason why in the third and fourth 
verses he should not allude to baptism as that 
in which there was a realization of the death 
state and a symbolization of the new life. 
After this he the more forcibly reasons that 
"planted," conjoined with Christ in his death, 
we shall be with him in his resurrection. And 
whilst it will be true, as we believe, that all 
those who are really conjoined with Christ 
spiritually will be resurrected with him, it will 
be none the less true that those who are also 
conjoined with him by symbol will also be 
resurrected with him. 

We are glad to concur with Bishop Merrill 
and all other men in all that can be said about 
true believers putting off the old man and 
putting on the new, yet this is only the 
stronger reason why we should be faithful to 
the divine pattern that symbolizes this state; 



134 BURIED BY BAPTISM. 

and it is certainly worthy of consideration 
that a large number of the ablest expositors 
of the Scriptures we have ever had, concur in 
the view we have taken. 

Lange says: ^'Baptism in the apostolic age was 
a proper baptism, — the immersion of the body in 
water. As Christ died, so we die (to sin) with him 
in baptism. The body is, as it were, buried under 
water, dead with Christ. The plunging under water 
represents death, and rising out of it the resurrec- 
tion to a new life. A more striking symbol could 
not be chosen." (Lange, Infant Bapt., p. 81.) 

Olshausen : " In this passage we are by no means 
to refer the baptism merely to their own resolutions, 
or see in it merely a figure, in which the one half 
of the ancient baptismal rite, thQ submersion^ merely 
prefigures the death and burial of the old man ; 
the second half, the emersion^ the resurrection of the 



new man." 



Knapp : "The image is here taken from bap- 
tized persons as they were im merged (buried), and 
as they emerged (rose again). Since immersion 
has been disused the full significance of this com- 
parison is no longer perceived." 

Bloomfield, in his notes on this passage, has the 
following : " There is a plain allusion to the ancient 
custom of baptism by immersion." 

John Wesley, in his notes on Eom. vi, 3, has 
these words: " Buried with him by baptism, alluding 
to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion." 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. 135 

Dr. Adam Clarke, in his comment on Eom. vi, 

4, says : ^' It is probable that the apostle here alludes 
to the mode of administering baptism hy immersion, 
the whole body being pat under the water, which 
seemed to say the man is dead, and when he came 
up out of the water he seemed to have a resurrec- 
tion to Iffe." 

Neander : ^' Baptism was originally by immersion. 
To this, various comparisons by the Apostle Paul 
allude." 

Schaff, as quoted in Lange's Commentary, refer- 
ring to this text, says : " All commentators of note 
(except Stuart and Hodge) expressly admit, or take 
it for granted, that in this verse, especially in sune- 
tapeen nnd egerthen, the ancient prevailing mode by 
immersion and emersion is implied as giving addi- 
tional force to the idea of the going down of the old 
and the rising up of the new man." 

Dr. Doddridge says : ^' It seems the part of candor 
to confess that here is an allusion to the manner of 
baptizing by immersion." 

Grotius says : ^']!:»J"ot only the word baptism, but 
the very form of it, intimates this. For an immer- 
sion of the whole body in water, so that it is no 
longer beheld, bears an image of that burial which 
is given to the dead. There was in baptism, as 
administered in former times, an image both of a 
burial and a resurrection." 

Luther says: "The other thing which belongs 
to baptism is the sign or the sacrament, which is 
the dipping into the water, from whence also it 
hath its name. For to baj^tize, in Greek, is to dip, 



136 BURIED BY BAPTISM. 

and baptizing is dipping." '' Baptism is a sign 
both of death and resiiiTection. Being moved by 
this reason, I would have those who are to be bap- 
tized, to be altogether dipped into the water, as the 
word doth express, and the mystery doth signify." 
Also adds, ''as without doubt it was instituted by 
Christ." 

Even if it could be successfully shown that 
the apostle, in the phrase '' baptized into his 
death" and ^'^ buried by baptism into his 
death/' had allusion only to the spiritual bap- 
tism, eveu then the spiritual must derive its im- 
agery from the material — the figurative from 
the literal. If the spiritual iuA^olves a burial, 
so tRe material from which it is drawn. In 
harmony with this is the view of many of the 
ablest expositoi's of this and past ages. 

'^ ThoUiek, on Eom. vi, 4: ''In order to under- 
stand the figurative use of baptism, we must bear 
in mind the well-known fact tliat the candidate in 
the primitive Church vn\^ immersed in water and 
raised out of it again." 

Conybeare and Howson have a statement 

almost identical. See vol. 2^ p. 169, foot 

note. 

We add, if it be true that the apostle, in 

Rom. vi, 4, and Col. ii, 12, speaking of a spir- 



. TENACIOUS FOR FORM. 137 

itual state, used the word baptism metaphori- 
cally, taking the name of the rite for the con- 
sequence or import of the rite, that is not a 
reason why we shouhl so use the word when 
it is used literally^ and to designate the action 
of the rite. 

Some one may ask: *^^Why insist so tena- 
ciously upon the form of a symbol T We 
ask. Why do you, as a Protestant, eat bread and 
drink wine — why not eat only, and let the 
priest drink for you ? You say, I eat and I 
drink, because God has so commanded — has 
said ^^ drink ye all of it;'' and it is important 
that we retain the symbols as our Lord gave 
them to us, and as a means of keeping vividly 
before us the great /a(?fe of the Gospel." We 
reply, this is true, and every one must see 
that in the great work of our redemption the 
apostle makes the truth of the Gospel hinge 
upon two classes of facts : the sufferings and 
death of Christ, and his burial and resurrec- 
tion. 1 Cor. XV, 3, 4 ; Rom. iv, 25. 

The Lord's supper beautifully symbolizes 
his suffering and death. But what, we ask, sym- 
bolizes his burial and resurrection ? Sprink- 
le 



138 BAPTIZED FOR THE DEAD. 

ling, pouring, a local washing, can not. Nothing 
but a symbolic burial and resurrection can. 

If the Bible were buried and its great doc- 
trines frittered away by traditions, yet these 
two symbols, baptism and the Lord's supper, 
kept, the two great facts of the Gospel would 
live before our eyes and in our hearts. Then, 
to keep vividly alive these two great facts of 
the Gospel, we can afford to be tenacious about, 
and laborious for the sacred form that sets 
forth, the sacred facts. 

BAPTIZED FOR THE DEAD. 

" Else what shall they do who are baptized 
for the dead." 1 Cor. xv, 29. 

The subject of the chapter is the resurrec- 
tion of the dead. The phrase, " baptized for the 
dead," as Barnes and Bloomfield appropriately 
suggest, is elliptical; and, as the context sug- 
gests, the ellipsis to be supplied is " the hope 
and expectation of the resurrection of the 
dead." The verse, then, with its counter hy- 
pothesis suggested, and ellipsis supplied and 
then pharaphrased, would run thus : " They 
who in theory deny the resurrection of the 



BAPTIZED FOR THE DEAD. 139 

dead are very inconsistent in so doing, and at 
the same time accept and conform to a divinely 
appointed ordinance, the very typical import 
of which is their own resurrection ; " for un- 
less there is something in the very nature 
of baptism by which to typify this doctrine or 
truth, we can see no force in its introduction. 
Here baptism can not be a mere symbol. 
It must here be a type — a pattern, a repre- 
sentation of something in the future, A 
symbol represents something coetaneous with 
the symbol. Thus, eating bread and drinking 
wine may represent the then communion with 
Christ. Baptism as a symbol may represent 
the then existing death to sin and resurrec- 
tion to newness of life. But a type represents 
a future event ; and it is essential to a type 
that in its very nature it be a pattern — a set- 
ting forth of the future event. In the case 
before us this future event was the resurrec- 
tion of the body. Evidently Paul had no 
other apprehension of baptism than that it in- 
volved a resurrection from the watery grave, 
and as such was typical of the future resur- 
rection of our own bodies. 



140 TOMBS GRAVES. 

In harmony with this view, Dr. Adam 
Clarke, in his commentary, says : " They, the 
baptized, receive baptism as an emblem of 
death, involuntarily going under the water; 
so they receive it as an emblem of the resur- 
rection to eternal life, as coming up out of the 
water ; thus they are ' baptized for the dead,' 
in perfect faith of the resurrection." Bloom- 
field and Kitto give a like exposition. 

TOMBS— GRAVES. 

There are those who insist that " there is 
no analogy between an immersion and a literal 
burial in the time of the apostle " — that the 
burial then consisted in putting the dead into 
a tomb hewn out of a rock. We reply, this 
was not the universal nor most common cus- 
tom of burying. 

Herodotus says: ^^When any one dies the 
body is committed to the ground, or rather 
they hide it in the earth." 

Moses, Aaron, Eleazar, and Joshua were 
buried in mountains — Saul and Deborah un- 
der the shade of trees — Sarah in a cave. 

Jahn says the sepulchers or burying 



mother's veil. 141 

places of the common class of people were, 
without doubtj mere excavations in the earth, 
such as are commonly made at the present 
day in the East. 

Persons who held a higher rank, who were 
more rich or more powerful, possessed subter- 
ranean recesses, crypts, or caverns. 

In the language of prophecy, our Lord was 
to ^^make his grave with the rich," ^'lie in the 
heart of the earth " — in a rock — covered up. 
The leading idea in all is, that of committing 
the body to the earth and covering it up — 
surrounding it on all sides — beautifully ex- 
pressed by Cyrus, when he says, " The body 
is restored to the earth and so placed as to be 
covered with its mother's veil." 

Bishop Merrill concurs that the leading 
idea is, " to put away out of sight, to cover 
up." But sprinkling can not do this. If you 
have a figurative burial, you have of necessity 
to take your imagery, your analogon, from the 
literal. 

If you take a spiritual, figurative burial, 
that but shows irresistibly what a literal 
burial must be — a covering up; and if, as 



142 COVER UP. 

Bishop Merrill says, ^Hhe burial is effected 
by baptism/' and baptism is the ordinance es- 
tablished in the Church to be administered by 
the use of water, then that baptism must be 
such as covers up. 



John's baptism. 143 

Chapter VIIL 

PERSONAL BAPTISM. 

John's baptism. 

"rpHBN went out to Him Jerusalem, and all 
J- Judea, and all the region round about 
Jordan." Matt, iii, 5. 

Dr. Hibbard assumes that "John in all 
baptized three million persons ;" " that he 
could not have immersed that number in his 
short ministry." We reply : 

1. If John took as much time to " sprinkle" 
or '^pour" as pedobaptist ministers now take, 
the difficulty will hold as certainly in the 
one case as in the other. 

2. We learn that the number baptized was 
not relatively very great; for we are told that 
"Jesus made and baptized more disciples than 
John/' and yet our Lord was "despised and 
rejected of men." 

Also, we know that the generation of vipers 
were not baptized; also, the "lawyers re- 
jected the counsel of God against themselves, 



144 John's baptism. 

being not baptized of him." Infants^ the 
sick and infii-m did not come. How, then, it 
will be asked, are we to understand the text? 
We answer, just as we do other Scriptures, 
by comparing Scripture with Scripture, and 
by using Scripture language as we do other 
common-sense language. 

Bengel says the text means men ^^from all 
parts/' like the phrase, ^^ I, if I be lifted up, 
will draw all men unto me " — men from all 
parts — and that was the fact in reference to 
those who came to John. 

3. Even with the admission that there were 
many, it does not follow that John was the only 
administrator of the rite, or that he personally 
baptized. It is said, Jesus made and baptized 
more disciples than John, yet he baptized not 
in person, but did so through his disciples. 

We now often ascribe to a man what was 
or is done by his agents. We say Solomon 
built the Temple, yet he personally laid not a 
stone. Dr. Adam Clarke quotes Lightfoot as 
saying the baptism of John w^as by plunging 
the body, after the same manner as the washing 
of unclean persons and the baptism of prose- 



QUESTION ABOUT PURIFYING. 145 

lytes." ^' These descended into water up to 
their necks, and then, at the invocation of the 
administrator, submerged themselves." (See 
Smith's Biblical Dictionary, Art. Proselyte.) 
There is, then, no reason, why haptizo shall 
not here haA^e its usual, well-known significa- 
tion — immerse, subnierge. 

John was now, by Heaven's authority, call- 
ing the people to repentance and using a sym- 
bol Avhich to the Jewish people signified sepa- 
ration from defilement. Naaman dipped 
himself; the leper bathed his flesh; the man 
who had touched a grave or bone or dead 
body bathed himself. To express separation 
from all moral pollution, Moses washed, 
bathed, Aaron and his sons {hamayim) in 
water. Lev. viii, 6. This might be done for 
another only by one having authority from 
Heaven. Moses or Elias or the Christ might ; 
but if John was neither, as he confessed, then 
B, Jew would have with him or his disciples a 
^^uestion about purifying," John iii, 25, but 
with John or his disciples, who knew his 
commission, there was no debate. 

Had he come sprinkling simple water, there 



146 BAPTISM OF OUR LORD. 

would have been no question about purifying^ 
for such had not been used for anv such 
purpose. 

BAPTISM OF OUR LORD. 

" Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jor- 
dan unto John, to be baptized of him. And 
Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straight- 
way out of the water." Matt, iii, 13, 16. 

The whole narrative here is as though the 
action of the baptism was immersion. The 
coming to the Jordan, a body of water; the 
word used to designate the action ; the coming 
up out of the water^ — all indicate that the ac- 
tion was immersion. But on the supposition 
that the action was sprinkling or pouring, 
nothing is in harmony. To be sprinkled there 
was no necessity that our Lord should have 
come to a body of water, nor that he should 
have gone down into it ; but to go up straight- 
way out of the water, there was a necessity 
that he had previously gone down into it. 
Bishop Merrill says, " There is no dispute 
about the fact that he was baptized in the 
river." (Page 211.) 

Again, it is written, our Lord " came from 



BAPTIZED INTO THE JORDAN. 147 

Nazareth of Galileejand was baptized of John 
eis ton lordanen^ into the Jordan. Mark i, 9. 

Some construe the phrase eis ton lordanen 
so as to read " at the Jordan." Moses Stuart 
says, " This is a possible construction, though 
not a probable one/' '' because/' says he, ^^the 
Jordan naturally designates the element by 
which the rite of baptism is performed." 

Others transpose the order of the text so 
as to take eis from its present connection with 
ehaptisthe^ and make it follow elthen. This is 
to change the written order, and, as Professor 
Loos remarks, ^^is not sustained by any of the 
versions, nor the matured scholarship of the 
age." ^^To say that Mark i, 9, and Matt, iii, 
13, are parallel, is a plain error. The two 
passages neither state the same facts, nor are 
they in the same form. Matthew says: 
' Jesus came from Galilee unto John, to he bap- 
tized of him! Mark : 'And was baptized into 
the Jordan by John! The passages italicized 
are different in conception and in fact. The 
latter records a fact that is not in the former 
at all, and so also 'Jordan' is in different re- 
lations in the two passages. In the former, 



148 BAPTIZED INTO THE JORDAN. 

the purpose unaccomplished is the chief 
thought; in the latter, the accomplished fact." 

Retaining, then, the accepted order of the 
text, Ave have the strong declaration that our 
Lord was baptized, immersed, in the Jordan. 
Here the rite only being referred to, w^ithout 
any allusion to the design of the rite, eis pre- 
ceding the accusative case, shows the relation 
which Jordan sustains to baptlzo — that into 
which the action tends. 

Some insist that the baptism of our Lord 
was his introduction into the priest's office, 
and quote Num. viii, 6, 7, as evidence that 
this baptism was by sprinkling; and to be 
consistent, they must and do claim, that John 
sprinkled only with simple water — the water 
of the Jordan ; but, 

1. The water referred to in Num. viii, 6, 7, 
was the '^ water of separation" — not simple 
water. 

2. Those set apart to the priest's office 
were of the tribe of Levi, of Aaron. But our 
Lord was not of the tribe of Levi, but of Ju- 
dah — ^^he was after the order of Melchisedec 
and not after the order of Aaron," Heb. vii, 



THREE THOUSAND. 149 

14 ; and " the priesthood being changed, there 
was of necessity also a change of the law." 
Heb. vii, 12. Hence our Lord was not in- 
ducted into the priesthood according to any 
law of Moses, as preparation for the Aaronic 
or Levitical priesthood. 

What, then, was the object of our Lord's 
baptism? Certainly not an introduction into 
the Aaronic priesthood. Certainly not a 
profession of repentance, nor for the remission 
of sins ; but, as the Son of Grod, it was proper 
he should endorse Heaven's order, and, as the 
great head of the Church endorse its initiatory 
rite ; and as Son of Man, he fitly says to each 
one of us, " Thus it becometh us to fulfill all 
righteousness." Let us do what we believe 
our Lord did. 

THE THREE THOUSAND. 

Let us assume that the three thousand, on 
the day of Pentecost, were immersed even as 
we now immerse. Properly arranged, as has 
been tested, each one could have been baptized 
in less than one minute. There were seventy 
disciples and twelve apostles — ^in all eighty- 



150 THREE THOUSAND. 

two. N0W5 divide three thousand by eighty- 
two, and the result is a fraction over thirty-five 
to each administrator. There was ample time, 
and labor moderate. 

2. Our Lord baptized through others ; so 
did Paul ; so the twelve may have baptized. 
Even had they done so in person, they could 
have baptized all in the time of four hours. 

3. If baptism was administered to the 
three thousand as to proselytes, the labor 
would have been only that of repeating the 
consecratory words. 

Church history shows that in the third and 
fourth centuries penitents, at the invocation of 
the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 
immersed themselves. See " Baptism," by 
Dr. Conant, pp. 103, 104. 

" Palladius observes, in the life of St. Chry- 
sostom, that at Constantinople three thousand 
persons were baptized at once, upon one of 
their great festivals." Origin Eccles. B. XI. 

Dr. J. G. King gives the following : '' One 
baptistery was prepared for the baptism of 
Clovis, King of France, and his majesty, with 
three thousand of his subjects, was plunged 



BODIES OF WATER. 151 

on Christmas day^ a. d. 496." Mezeray, 
French History, p. 15. 

" In the Eastern Churches/' says Dr. King, 
" baptism has been universally administered by 
dipping from the first introduction of it to this 
dayT Dr. King's Rites of the Greek Church. 

BODIES OF WATER. 

It is claimed by some that there were not 
at Jerusalem bodies of water adequate and 
accessible in which to immerse three thousand 
in one day. 

Bishop Merrill says : ^^ There were two 
pools in the vicinity — Siloam and Bethesda. 
The first was perhaps a mile distant; was 
flowing water^ used for family purposes, and 
can hardly be supposed available, if it was of 
size and shape to adapt it to that end. Be- 
thesda held water enough, but was not in con- 
dition, nor available." Page 216. Let us see 
if the Bishop has given to us a fair presenta- 
tion of facts. 

We read in 2 Kings xviii^ 17, of the 
"upper pool;" in 2 Kings xx, 20, of the pool 
that Hezekiah made ; in Isaiah xxii, 9, of the 



152 BODIES OF WATER. 

« 

waters of the lower pool; in John v, 2, of the 
poolof Bethesda; in John ix, 7^ of the ^^pool 
of Siloam." 

Dr. Robinson, in his book on Palestine, says 
there are on the north side of Jerusalem, two 
large reservoirs of water, one six hundred feet 
long by two hundred and fifty feet in width, 
the other three hundred feet long by two hun- 
dred feet in width ; also the pool of Siloam 
and two others outside. Within the walls he 
mentions the pool of Bathsheba, the pool of 
Hezekiah, and the pool of Bethesda. The 
pool of Hezekiah, he says, was about two 
hundred and forty feet by one hundred and 
forty-four broad; the pool of Bethesda was 
three hundred and sixty feet long by one hun- 
dred and thirty in width. Besides these he 
mentions an aqueduct and other fountains. 

Strabo and Tacitus testify to the immense 
supply of water in Jerusalem, so that it could 
withstand a protracted siege even when all 
w^as dry without. It is objected that these 
pools were too deep and precipitous in which 
to immerse. Certainly we know that the pool 
of Bethesda was such that impotent folks 



WATERS ABUNDANT. 153 

went down in it at certain seasons^ when 
stirred. 

Dr. Robinson describes the pool of Heze- 
kiah as covering three quarters of an acre of 
ground. '^To this day the people descend to 
wash and fill their water-jars. It is supplied 
b}^ an aqueduct from the upper pool. The bot- 
tom is sloping." 

Dr. Barclay, speaking of these pools, says : 

"More delightful swimming pools than these 
heart could not desire ; and that thev were form- 
erly used as sach is rendered highly probable by 
the well-arranged flights of steps leading into 
them." He says, that "unitedly they expose a 
surface of water, when only half filled, equal to an 
area of ten or twelve acres, possessing all depths at 
all seasons or stages of icater, from forty to fifty feet 
in the central, to the superficiesof the upper shelv- 
ing rocks." 

Eusebius quotes Timochares as sayings " The 

whole city flowed with water, so that even the 

gardens w^ere irrigated of those flowing waters 

out of the city." See 2 Chron. xxxii^^i. 

Waters were abundant. 

Others object that the authorities would 

not allow access to these acres of water and 

swimming places. There was no prohibition 

11 



154 ENON. 

from these places, for it is definitely stated in 
Acts ii, 43 and 47, that " fear came upon every 
soulj and that the apostles went from house to 
house praising God and having favor with all 
the people." Even after this a great com- 
pany of priests were "obedient to the faith." 
See Acts vi^ 7. No difficulty here. 

PLACES FOR BAPTIZING. 

"John was baptizing in Enon, near to 
Salim, because there was much water there." 

The record is, the selection w^as made in 
reference to facilities for baptizing, not the con- 
venience of camels or men. 

The phrase polla hudata is often used to 
designate abundant waters. See Rev. i, 15^ 17. 

Eiisebius says : " Enon was near to ^Alim" 
(Salim). Even at this present time the place 
is shown eight miles from Scythopolis^ toward 
the southj near to Salim and the Jordan." 

*In reference to Bethabara, John i, 28, we 
need only say : "• The best authorities concur 
that Bethania is the true reading ; and that 
Bethabara was inserted by Origen without suf- 
ficient reason." 



PHILIP AND THE EUNUCH. 155 
PHILIP AND THE EUNUCH. 

It is expressly stated that Philip and the 
eunuch, coming to a certain body of water, and 
the eunuch desiring to be baptized, both went 
down into the water ; that Philip there bap- 
tized him, and both came up out of the water. 
Acts viii, 38, 39. 

Here again the word employed (ehaptisen)^ 
and the attendant facts of going down ijito the 
water and coming up out of the water, all indi- 
cate that the action was immersion. 

The preposition m, as here used, shows 
relation, and following a verb of motion, indi- 
cates that into which the action tends. This 
is a settled rule ; and when Bishop Merrill 
affirms that, to express entrance, ^'eis must 
also be a prefix," ^^and when this double use 
does not occur, the entrance is not expressed" 
(page 221), he evidently affirms without care- 
ful examination. Let the reader turn to the 
fourth chapter of this book. He will there 
see many examples where entrance is manifest 
without eis as a prefix, and see how utterly un- 
tenable is the Bishop's position. Eis^ follow- 



156 OUT OF THE WATER. 

ing a verb of motion, as certainly points to the 
object into which the action tends as our word 
into does. Eis^ connected with other verbs, and 
preceding objects that forbid entrance, may 
have other meanings ; but when the con- 
struction is as in the text under consideration, 
then the word shows that into which the ac- 
tion tends. JEk^ out of, is its exact opposite, 
and is here so used. 

Doddridge, on this passage, remarks : 

"It would, be very unnatural to suppose that 
they went down to the water merely that Philip 
might take up a little water in his hand to pour on 
the eunuch. A person of his dignity had, no 
doubt, many vessels in his baggage (by which water 
might be brought into the chariot) on such a jour- 
ney through a desert country, a precaution abso- 
lutely necessary for travelers in those parts, and 
never omitted by them." 

Some assume that the road from Jerusalem 
to Graza was through a dry region, and with- 
out a water in which immersion could have 
been performed. 

Smith, in his Bible Dictionary, says : 

" There were two roads from Jerusalem to Gaza, 
the one more favorable, for carriages (Acts viii, 28), 



DESERT MUCH WATER. 157 

further to the south through Hebron, and thence 
through a district comparatively without towns/* 
" The angel referred to this route as the one in 
which Philip would find the eunuch." 

2. The context is suggestive. There was 
a " certain water j' the phraseology suggesting 
not merely water^ but a then existing body 
of water. 

Thomson^ in his ^^ Land and the Book/' 

says : 

^'Philip most probably set out from the 'city 
of Samaria' to go to Gaza, for Philip was in 
that city when he received the command to go. 
Acts viii, 5, 27. He would then have met the 
chariot somewhere south-west of Latron. There is 
a fine stream of water called Murabbah, deep 
enough even in June to satisfy the utmost wishes 
of our Baj^tist friends." '^The Murabbah is merely 
a local name for the great Wady Shurar, given to 
it on account of copious fountains which supply it 
with water during Summer." (See Vol. II, p. 310.) 

BAPTISM OF PAUL. 

"Arise and be baptized." Acts xxii, 16. It 
is assumed that the word (anastas) arise, indi- 
cates that Paul was required to assume an 
erect posture, and remain in this whilst being 
baptized — " be baptized whilst yet standing." 



158 BAPTISM OF PAUL. 

1. Most expositors agree with Barnes that 
the word ^^ arise," as here used, is a mere 
Hebraism, often is ''redundant^'' like ^^go to 
now/' sometimes to denote to begin to do a 
thing, to resolve to do." ^^ Philip opened his 
mouth, and began." " Then the high-priest 
rose up." This had no reference to erect 
posture of body, but clearly and only to pur- 
pose of the mind. 

Thus it is said the prodigal son " arose and 
came^^o his father." No reference to attitude 
of his body, but purpose of his mind. So 
here. All that Ananias probably meant was, 
"decide now," "hesitate not," be baptized. 

President Pendleton has well said : 

"If anastas, 'arise,' is used in immediate gram- 
matical connection with another verb, baptisai, ex- 
pressive of action, it does not follow that the well- 
established nature of the action expressed by 
baptisai is to be changed in order to make it har- 
monize with the statical sense of anastas^ 'arise.' 
There is no such law of interpretation as this. 
Such criticisms are simply puerile. They do double 
violence to exegesis: First, in fixing a false sense 
upon anastas, the sense of taking an erect posture 
while and in order that some ceremony may be per- 
formed upon us ; and, second, in using this false sense 



ARISE, AND BE BAPTIZED. 159 

to determine the meaning of bapfisai, a word far 
more fixed and definite in its significance than is 
anastas.''' 

He adds: "Suppose yon sa}^ to your guests, 
^Arise. and eat your dinners,' would you mean that 
they must ' stand up ' while eating? Or would the 
Avell-establislied custom of sitting at meals deter- 
mine the sense? 'Certainly, I would not expect 
any one to understand me as inviting him to stand 
up at dinner.' Suppose a mother says to her child, 
'Arise, and be bathed,' would you understand her 
to mean that the child must place itself in an up- 
right position in order to be bathed? Certainly 
not. Then, again, if there is a well-established 
meaning to the word bathe, if the child has fre- 
quently not only seen others bathed, but has been 
itself the subject of the operation, would it, could it 
be so childish as to pretend to understand it as mean- 
ing an action which was to be performed standing?'^ 

We remark, if any argument is to be drawn 
from the word "arise/' it is in favor of immer- 
sion. If the action performed was only that 
of sprinkling a little water or damping Paul's 
forehead, then no necessity that he should 
"arise," for many demand a kneeling posture 
whilst they sprinkle. But if it was neces- 
sary to go to a water that he might be im- 
mersed, then the command, "arise," would be 
pertinent. 



\ 



160 HOUSE OF CORNELIUS. 

Once more : Had Ananias simply dipped 
his fingers in a, little water^ and dampened the 
forehead of Paul^ such action would not have 
suggested to the mind of Paul a ^Mvashing 
away of sin/' for^ as a Jew, he knew no such 
use of water to signify separation from pol- 
lution ; but with immersion for such purposes 
he was familiar, as we have shown. 

BAPTISM OF GENTILES. 

" Who shall forbid water that these should 
be baptized ?" Acts x, 47. 

It is assumed that the thought before 
Peter's mind w^as " that of some person bring- 
ing to him a little water." Surely , a very 
different thought had possession of Peter's 
mind. He had all life-long regarded it as an 
improper thing for him, a Jew, to go into the 
house of a Gentile. But he had now no alter- 
native. The Spirit had bid him go and de- 
clare unto Cornelius and his household " things 
whereby he and his house should be saved ;" 
and whilst he was preaching Jesus to them, and 
saying, "- Whosoever believeth on him, shall 
receive remission of sins," the Holy Ghost fell 



PHILIPPIAN JAILER. 161 

on them as at the beginning. Peter could 
now no longer hesitate^ and^ emboldened by 
the Spirit's presence, and knowing that bap- 
tism was the sign of pardon and of divine ap- 
proval^he exclaimed/^ Who shall forbid water 
that the^e should not be baptized T — same as 
who shall forbid that these should be bap- 
tized? — w^ater simply being associated with 
baptism, just as the same speaker, on another 
occasion, associated the water of the flood with 
baptism. See 1 Peter iii, 21. 

THE PHILIPPIAN JAILER. 

^^He was baptized the same hour of the 
night." Acts xvi, 33. 

It is assumed that the jailer was baptized 
in the prison, and that there was not w^ater 
enough there in which to immerse him. We 
reply : 

1. The jailer brought Paul and Silas out 
of the inner prison. See verses 29 and 30. 

2. We are told Paul and Silas ^^ spake the 
Word of the Lord to all that were in the housed 
Paul and Silas were doubtless brought into 
his house. 



162 PHILIPPIAN JAILER. 

3. The jailer took them where he washed 
theh^ stripes^ and was there baptized. This 
was out of his house ; for, he afterward 
brought them into his house. See A^erses 33 
and 34. 

The question is raised, " Was there a pkce 
where the jailer and his househokl could be 
immersed?" We answer: 

1. There was a river near by. See verse 13. 

2. We are assured that "not only prison- 
yards, but often the yards and gardens of 
private houses in the East were furnished 
with baths." 

Dr. Hackett, in his comment on this 
verse, says : 

"The jailer repaired with Paul and Silas from 
the outer room (see exo in ver. 30) to the water, 
which he needed for bathing their bodies — elousen. 
This verb, says Dr. Robinson, signifies to wash 
the entire body, not merely a part of it, like nipto. 
Trench says: niptein and nipsasthai almost always 
express the washing of a part of the body, while 
louein, which is not so much to wash as to bathe, 
implies always not the bathing of a part of the 
body, but of the whole.'' 

''Ancient houses, as usually built, inclosed a rec- 
tangular reservoir or basin (the impluvium^ so 



THE CHANGE. 163 

called), for receiving the rain that flowed from the 
slightly inclined roof. Some suggest they may be 
used a kolumhithra, or swimming bath. Such a 
bath was a common appurtenance of houses and 
public edifices among the Greeks and JRomans." 

Potter, speaking of bathings among the 
Jews, says that in consequence of the disap- 
pearance of many of the streams, " their place 
was supplied as far as possible, by house baths 
and public pools." (See Art. Bath.) The nec- 
essary means for immersion were there, and the 
word employed indicates what the action was. 

THE CHANGE. 

The reader will ask why and how the 
change to sprinkling or pouring, or mere wet- 
ting the forehead? The first departure, even 
in sickness, seems to have been about the 
middle of the third century, and in the case 
of Novatius, who, '' being sick, and it being 
supposed that he would die immediately, re- 
ceived baptism, being (^perichutMs) poured 
around with water on the bed whereon he lay, 
if that can be called baptism." (Eusebius.) 

This example seems to have been followed 
by others in case of sickness, who, as Euse- 



164 POPE STEPHEN. 

bius informs us, were called Clinici, '-' "f hese 
were prohibited until they went to the bishop 
and had completed what was wanting in their 
baptism." (Eusebius.) 

Stuart, referring to the case of sick per- 
sons in the time of Cyprian, allow^ed baptism 
by affusion, or by pouring water on their 
heads, remarks: '^^All these were mani- 
festly exceptions to the common usage of 
the Church." 

We have the following from the Edinburgh 
Cyclopaedia, published by Sir David Brewster, 
a Presbyterian : 

"Pope Stephen, in 753, being driven from 
Eome, fled to Pepin, the king of France. Whilst 
there, the monks of Cressy, in Brittany, in- 
quired of him if, in case of necessity, it would 
be lawful, in baptizing, to pour water out of the 
hand or cup on tiie head of an infant. The Pope 
replied that it would in case of necessity." 

" It was not until the year 1311 that a council 
held at Eavenna, declared immersion or sprinkling 
to be indifferent. In Scotland, however, sprinkling 
was never practiced in ordinary cases till after the 
Eeformation — about the middle of the sixteenth 
century. From Scotland it made its way into 
England, bat was not authorized by the estab- 
lished Church." 



HOW INTRODUCED. 165 

Dr. Gale says : 

"All men know that baptism was used to be ad- 
ministered in England by dipping or immersion till 
Queen Elizabeth's time — 1558 — since which time 
that pure, primitive manner is grown into a total 
disuse within a little more than one hundred years; 
and sprinkling, the most opposite to it imaginable, 
introduced in its stead. The fact is notorious." 

Neal, in his History of the Puritans, tells 
how the change came. He says : 

'•The introduction of sprinkling instead of dip- 
ping, in the island of G-reat Britain, seems to have 
been done loy such Scotch as were disciples of Cal- 
vin of Geneva, during the Marian persecution. A 
book was published at G-eneva, in 1556, advocating 
sprinkling, and approved by John Calvin. 

'• At this time the established Church and foreign 
Protestants in England practiced trine immersion. 
A revolution in the Church and civil war in the 
State, which sent twelve thousand horse and seven 
thousand foot into Scotland in ^ve years, succeeded 
in the establishment of the book by law." 

Dr. Wall, pedobaptist, in his Avork on the 

History of Infant Baptism, says : 

•'France seems to have been the first country in 
the world where baptism by affusion was used or- 
dinarily to persons in health, and in the public way 
of administerino; it. In the Church of Eno'land, it 
being allowed to weak children (in the reign of 
Queen Elizabeth), to be baptized by affusion, many 



166 Calvin's change. 

fond ladies and gentlewomen first, and afterwards 
by degrees the common people, would obtain the 
favor of the priest, to have their children pass for 
weak children, too tender to endure dipping in the 
water. As for sprinkling, properly called, it seems 
it was at 1645 just then beginning^ and used by very 
few. The}^ (the Westminster Assembly of divines) 
reforined the font into a basin. This learned As- 
sembl}' could not remember that fonts to baptize 
in had been always used by the primitive Ciiris- 
tians, long before the beginning of Poper}', and 
ever since churches were built; but that sprinkling 
was really introduced (in France first, and then in 
other Popish countries) in times of Popery ; and 
that, accordingly, all those countries in which the 
usurped power of the Pope is^ or has been formerly^ 
owned, have left off dipping children in the font ; but 
that all other countries in the world^ which had never 
regarded his authority^ do still use it.'' 

Again, on i)age 403, he says: "The custom of 
sprinkling was brought into the English Church 
from German}^ and Geneva. During the bloody 
reign of Mary many fled to Germany and Switzer- 
land. There they became attached to the customs 
of the Protestant Churches, and especially to the 
authority of Calvin. He had declared in his Insti- 
tutes that the difference is of no moment whether 
he who is baptized is totallj^ immersed or whether 
he is merely sprinkled by an affusion of water. 
This should be a matter of choice to the Churches 
in different regions; although the word baptize sig- 
nifies to immerse, and the rite of immersion was 



Calvin's liturgy. 167 

practiced by the ancient Church." (See his Insti- 
tutes, iv, c. 15, § 19.) 

This was allowing to the Chuches Papal 
assumption — power of changing the laws of 
Christ. 

Wall continues by saying that Calvin had, 
in a liturgy for the Churches, provided pour- 
ing as baptism for infants. This, he says, w-as 
the first in the Avorkl making such provision. 
Similar teaching, about the same time, was 
maintained by Musculus in France. The exiles 
returned to Scotland and England, and brought 
with them the teachings and liturgy of Calvin. 

This was the origin of the two parties re- 
ferred to by Dr. Beecher, and to which we 
referred in our first chapter — the new party 
for sprinkling, the old for the former usage, 
immersion. King James's translation w^as 
made after the death of Elizabeth, and the 
word haftizo forbidden to be translated. 

In 1643 the Westminster Assembly of 
divines, in framing a directory for Avorship, 
decided that dipping was not necessary. But 
on the motion that '' the minister shall take 
water and sprinkle or pour it with his hand 



168 LEGAL FORCE. 

on the face or forehead^ the vote came to an 
equity within one." The next day Dr. 
Lightfoot amended^ by saying : ^^ To sprinkle 
or pour should not only be lawful but suffi- 
cient." This carried, and was ratified by 
Parliament the next year, and parents were 
required to have their children baptized. De- 
cisions by law^ were varied and opposite. 

In the Christian Quarterly for ISTl, we 
find this statement : 

" The original law of 1534 enforced immersion, 
and those who were not baptized were to be treated 
as outlaws. The act of Parliament of 1644 re- 
pealed 80 much of the old law as enforced immer- 
sion, and enforced sprinkling in its stead, and left 
the original penalty annexed to sprinkling. After 
this those who were not sprinkled were to be 
treated as outlaws, deprived of the right of inheri- 
tance of estate, the right of burial, and in short of 
all the rights secured to the other sprinkled citi- 
zens of the realm." 

''Also the practice prevailed, by the corruptions 
of the priests, to furnish priest's orders in infiancy, 
and they were elected priests before they knew any- 
thing, and the law required that they must be first 
baptized. This abuse went so fiir that Q,ueen Eliza- 
beth of England put an injunction upon babes being- 
made priests." (See ''Injunction of Queen Eliza- 
beth," A. D. 1559.) 



VIRGINIA AND MASSACHUSETTS. 169 

III 1662^ Virginia passed a law requiring 
" all persons who could to take their child to 
a lawful minister of the county^ and have the 
child baptized, or be amerced in a fine of two 
thousand pounds of tobacco, half to the in- 
former, and half to the publique." 

In 1648 a council at Cambridge, Mass., 
adopted sprinkling instead of immersion. In 
May of the same year the legislature of that 
State passed a law making it a penal offense 
to say that infant sprinkling was not good and 
valid baptism. 

Sprinkling, then, seems to have been an 
innovation upon primitive practice, and Papal 
in its origin. 'Ihiese concessions are made by 
pedobaptists distinguished for learning and 
ability. We suggest that, as the argument is 
manifestly in favor of immersing as the primi- 
tive mode, and as all admit that this is valid 
baptism, and as all could be immersed with- 
out moral wrong — without sacrifice of prin- 
ciple, that all be immersed, and thus take 
away one cause of division among Christians. 

With a hope to do something toward this 
desirable end, I have written the foregoing. 

12 



170 INFANT TRAINING. 



Chapter IX. 

SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

INFANT consecration and childhood training 
are among our first duties. Hannah con- 
secrated her child 5 Samuel, before he was 
born. Soon after his birth she caused him to 
be circumcised ; then took him to the house of 
the Lord, the then place of instruction, and 
"lent"' — devoted — him to the Lord forever. 

Every parent who will thus consecrate his 
or her child to God, and then train that child 
in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, 
may expect a holy character. 

Though the consecration should be thus 
early, and the training with the child's Jirst 
moral act^ yet it does not follow that the child 
should be baptized before it is capable of that 
which baptism is designed to express — faith in 
Christ — new birth — '^ outward sign of an in- 
ward grace." 

Though pious Hannah caused her infant to 
be circumcised under the old covenant, it does 



NO AUTHORITY. 171 

not follow that every pious parent must now 
cause his or her child to be baptized under the 
new covenant. The two covenants^ as we 
shall see, are different in their nature, and the 
two ordinances in their designs. 

We may also remark that, in our desire for 
the salvation of our children, we should not 
be governed by our own preconceived notions 
of propriety, nor by the inferences or tradi- 
tions of men; for when ?i positive duty is urged 
upon us, it should be enforced by a positive 
command^ or, at least, by clear precedent ; and, 
as baptism is a New Testament ordinance, 
that positive command enjoining it, or clear 
precedent for it, must be found in the New^ 
Testament. Can we find such ? Knapp, in 
his W'Ork on theology, speaking of infant bap- 
tism, says: ^^ There is no decisive example of 
this practice under the New Testament." 
Again : "^ There is no express command for in- 
fant baptism in the New Testament." (P. 215.) 

Bishop Kendrick (Roman Catholic), in his 
work on baptism, says : "' Without the aid of 
tradition, the practice of baptizing infants can 
not be satisfactorily vindicated; the scriptural 



172 CHRIST BLESSING CHILDREN. 

proof on this subject not being thoroughly 
conclusive." 

Neander makes a similar concession in his 
Church history^ vol. I^ p. 311. 

Ifj then, there be no divine warrant for 
infant baptism, it is mere tradition and usur- 
pation; and, to the extent it prevails, it sub- 
verts ^' believer's baptism " — the divine ar- 
rangement. 

Many advocates of infant baptism, though 
they can not show a direct warrant for the 
rite, claim that it grew out of ^^the essence of 
the Christian consciousness" — the supposed 
" propriety of things." This is the very origin 
of all Papal rites — the plea of all traditions. 

A still larger class of pedobaptists claim 
that there is an implied warrant in certain 
texts of scripture, which we will now consider. 

1. It is assumed that the act of our Lord, 
in blessing little children is a warrant for in- 
fant baptism. The record is as follows : "And 
there were brought unto him [little] children, 
that he should put his hands on them, and pray ; 
and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus 
said. Suffer \littlc\ children, and forbid them 



CHRIST BLESSING CHILDREN. 173 

not^ to come unto me ; for of such is the king- 
dom of heaven. And he hiid his hands on 
them and departed thence." Matt, xix, 13-15. 
The word little is not in the original. 

Ahiiost every minister w^ho now proposes 
to baptize infants prefaces his remarks by ref- 
erence to this act of our Lord ; and yet there 
is not here a particle of evidence that our Lord 
baptized one of these children. Nor is there 
any evidence that our Lord and his disciples 
had been in the habit of baptizing infants or 
little children ; for, had he, and had these 
parents brought their children for any such 
purpose, then the disciples would not have 
dared to rebuke the parents. Nor is there any 
evidence that these parents expected baptism, 
or brought these children for any such pur- 
pose. The record is, they brought them to 
our Lord that he should " put his hands on 
them and pray": — bless them. It was the 
custom of Jewish parents to seek the blessing 
of prophets or great teachers on their chil- 
dren. Joseph brought his children to Jacob, 
that he might bless them. See Gen. xlviii, 13, 
14; see also Matt, ix, 18; Num. xxii, 6; 



174 "little children." 

Luke ii^ 28-34. Manifestly, this is all these 
parents expected, or our Lord did. 

This being true, nothing is gained by re- 
ferring to the import of the Greek words 
pais and hrephos. 

Also, even these words are used to desig- 
nate those who were more than infants. See 
Mark v, 40-42 ; Matt, xviii, 2, 3, 6 ; also, 2 
Tim. iii, 15. 

Olshausen, referring to the text, says : 
"Of that reference to infixnt baptism, which 
it is so common to seek in this narrative^ there 
is clearly not the slightest trace to be found." 

Expressing the same view, Jeremy Taylor 
says : " From the action of Christ's* blessing 
infants to infer that they were baptized, proves 
nothing so much as that there is a want of 
better argument." 

It will be said, our Lord declared that such 
are in heaven; and, if fit for heaven, then 
they are for the Church. We reply : 

1. Many children may, by God's arrange- 
ment, be taken to heaven, and yet not be fit 
subjects for the observance of a positive ordi- 
nance. 



CHILDREN lord's SUPPER. 175 

For example, though you believe your in- 
fant, should it now die, would be taken to 
heaven, yet you would not pretend now to 
brino' that infant to the Lord's table, offer it 
bread and wine in commemoration of the 
broken body and shed blood of our Lord. 
And why not? Because it is incapable ot 
" discerning the Lord's body " — doing that 
which the Lord's supper is designed to 
express — commemoration of his death and 
suffering, and our fellowship one with an- 
other. 

Just so in reference to baptism. The infant 
is incapable of doing that w^hich baptism is 
designed to express — repentance toward God 
and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. 

Then, though infants ma}^ be fit for heaven, 
it does not follow that they are fit subjects for 
the observance of a positive ordinance. But, 

2. While it is true that infants are in 
heaven, yet this is not the truth our Lord de- 
signed here to express, nor is heaven ahove 
the kingdom he here referred to. Manifestly, 
what our Lord meant to do was, first, to re- 
buke his disciples for their ostentation in re- 



176 CHILDREN^HUMBLE, TEACHABLE. 

bilking these parents for bringing their chil- 
dren to him for his blessing ; and, second, to 
remind these disciples of a previously uttered 
truth; namely, that only those who were like 
little children — humble ^ teachable — can enter 
into his kingdom. 

"'^ Jesus called a, little child unto him, and 
set him in the midst of them, and said unto 
them, Verily, I say unto you, except ye be 
converted and become as little children, ye 
shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." 
Matt, xviii, 1-4. 

Barnes, commenting on the text Ave are 

considering (Matt, xix, 14), says: 

''The kingdom of heaven evidentlj^ means here 
the Church. See Malt, ill, 2. By Mark and Luke- 
it is said he immediately added, 'Whosoever shall 
not receive 'the kingdom of God as a little child, 
shall not enter therein.' " "Whosoever shall not be 
humble, unambitious, and docile, shall not be a true 
follower of Christ, nor a member of his kingdom. 
Of such as these — that is, of persons with such tem- 
pers as these — is the Church to be composed. He 
does not say of these infants^ but of such persons as 
resemble them, as are like them in temper, is the 
kingdom of heaven made up. As emblematic, 
therefore, of what his own followers should be, and 
as having traits of character so strongly resembling 



OLD COVENANT DISANNULLED. 177 

what he required in his followers, it was proper 
that they should be brought to him." 

The italicising in the above quotation was 
by Barnes himself. 

It is clear^ then, and conceded that, so far 
as this text is concerned, there is no warrant 
for infant baptism. 

Again : It is claimed that the new cov- 
enant is but a continuation of the old; that 
baptism comes in the place of circumcision; 
and that, as infants, under the old, were cir- 
cumcised, so they may now, under the new, 
be baptized. We reply : 

1. The new covenant is not a continuation 
of the old. Paul says : ^^The new covenant 
is a better covenant on better promises;" and, 
^^ In that he saith a new covenant, he hath 
made the first old. Noav that which decayeth 
and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away." 
Heb. viii, 13. It \vas "disannulled." See 
Heb. vii, 18. It was "nailed to the cross." 
Col. ii, 14. 

The new covenant came in over Christ, the 
sacrificial victim, by whose blood this new 
covenant of faith and love was sealed* Heb. 



178 NEW COVENANT. 

ix^ 16^ 17. Under this new covenant God 
said he would ^^put his laws in their mind and 
write them in their hearts." Heb. viii, 10. 

The ^^ old covenant" was the "covenant of 
law," ceremonial law, including circumcision, 
(Gal. V, 2, 3) the "covenant of circumcision," 
a "fleshly covenant." 

The new covenant is a spiritual covenant, 
a covenant dispensation of faith and love, a 
dispensation in which faith and love are the 
distinguishing features and the prerequisites. 
Under the old, flesh was the prerequisite, cir- 
cumcision the sign. Under the new, faith is 
the prerequisite, baptism the sign. 

The nature of the covenant being changed, 
it would be a fair inference that the nature 
and design of the ordinance would be changed. 
This is true, as we will show hereafter, 

2. It is not true that baptism conies in the 
place of circumcision. 

(1.) Circumcision was a mark of flesh, of 
blood. To Abraham it was a seal of his faith; 
but not to his infants, for they could not ex- 
ercise the faith. To his fleshly seed it was a 



CIRCUMCISION FOR JEWS. 179 

" sign " — a '' sign '' that they were of the 
blood and household of Abraham. 

Baptism is the sign of a spiritual state, of 
repentance, and therefore called the " baptism 
of repentance." In the very nature of the 
case, the one can not be in the place of the 
other. 

(2.) Circumcision was restricted to nation 
and sex. Only Jews and those adopted into 
Jewish families were circumcised, and of these 
only the males. But baptism is for all true 
believers, Jews and Gentiles, males and fe- 
males. 

(3.) Circumcision was never in the name 
of the deity ; but baptism is in the name of 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 

(4.) Much as the Jews insisted upon the 
observance of circumcision, and often as the 
apostles showed it was not any longer obliga- 
tory, but belonged to that covenant dispensa- 
tion now '^disannulled," "nailed to the cross," 
they never quieted these complainers by tell- 
ing them, or even intimating, that baptism 
caipe in its stead. On the contrary, though 
these Jews had been circumcised, yet John, 



180 BAPTISM FOR BELIEVERS. 

our Lord, and his apostles required that all 
penitent believers^ whether Jews or Gentiles, 
males or females, be baptized. Baptism came 
not in the stead of circumcision. The sub- 
jects of the one were not, forsooth, the subjects 
of the other. To make this, if possible, still 
more clear, let me ask, Does it follow that, 
because, under the old dispensation, every 
member of the Jewish family, converted or 
unconverted, might eat of the Passover, every 
member of your family, converted or uncon- 
verted, may now eat of the Lord's supper? 
To ask the question is to answer it. The 
one ordinance, then, was less restrictive than 
the other, the design different. 

Just here we may consider for a moment 
two texts appended to the one hundred and 
sixty-sixth question of the Larger Catechism 
of the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian 
Church as proof texts that infants are "within 
the covenant." 

The first one is Acts ii, 38,39 : -^Repent and 
be baptized, cA^^ery one of you, in the name of 
Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye 
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For 



''YOUR children/' 181 

the promise is unto you, and to your children, 
and to all that are afar off, even to as many 
as the Lord our God shall call." 

Here it is assumed that the word ^^ chil- 
dren " means infants, whereas a very frequent 
Scriptural use is the designation of adults, as 
"children of Israel;" also "offspring," de- 
scendants, as "I will pour out my Spirit on 
thy seed, and my blessing on thine offspring." 
Isa. xliv, 3. Barnes, referring to this pas- 
sage, and to the one in Joel which Peter 
quoted, says : " In these and similar places 
descendants or posterity are denoted ;" and, in 
his comments on the text Ave are considering 
(Acts ii, 39), he says : " It does not refer to 
children as children^ and should not be ad- 
duced to establish the propriety of infiint bap- 
tism, or as applicable particularly to infants." 
The thing promised and the character of the 
persons to whom the promise was applicable, 
should settle the import of the text. The 
thing promised was not baptism, but the 
"Holy Spirit;" and. 

Second, the persons who were to receive 
the Spirit were such as should prophesy. 



182 '' FEDERALLY HOLY. 



a 



Your sons and your daughters shall proph- 
esy." 

Again : Peter showed to whom the promise 
was applicable. It was applicable to those of 
the apostles who were then prophesying — 
speaking with tongues to '^edification and to 
exhortation." These were the l^ind of chil- 
dren — descendants — to whom the promise was 
applicable. The text has no reference what- 
ever to infants. 

The second text^ collated to show that in- 
fants are "in the covenant" and proper sub- 
jects for baptism, is 1 Corinthians vii, 14 : 
"The unbelieving husband is sanctified by 
the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified 
by the husband : else were your children un- 
clean^ but now are they holy." 

That which is assumed here is that the 
children of one believing parent are federally 
holy 5 fit subjects for baptism. The assump- 
tion might just as well have been for confirma- 
tion or the bishopric — as well the one as the 
other — for both are sheer assumptions. As 
Barnes remarks in his notes on this passage : 
" No such thought as that assumed appears in 



''ABRAHAMIC CHURCH. 183 

the context." ^^ There is not one word about 
baptism here, not one allusion to it, nor does 
the argument in the remotest degree bear 
upon it." " The question was not whether 
children should be baptized, but whether there 
should be separation between man and wife 
where one wa.s a Chi'istian and the other not." 
Paul's argument is that, zf such a separation 
should take place, it would imply thkt the mar- 
riage was improper, and, of course, the children 
must be regarded as ^*^ unclean," ^^illegitimate." 
That is all ; nothing more, nothing less. 
Neither text has any reference to infant 
baptism. 

Again : It is assumed that God organized a 
Church under the old, or Abrahamic covenant, 
put infants into that Church, and there is no 
authority for putting them out. 

We reply, there was no Church under 
the Abrahamic covenant, in the New Testament 
sense of that word. 

The word, translated Church, is ecclesia; 
and means an ^^ assembly" — '^congregation." 
In the New Testament the word is used in an 
appropriated sense; and means not only an as- 



184 CHURCH IN THE WILDERNESS. 

sembljj but an assembly of believers — has an 
appropriated import, just as the term apostle 
haSj which means^ not merely one sent^ but one 
sent by the Lord. to testify of things the apos- 
tle had seen. So the word Church, when used 
to designate the organization under the New 
Testament^ designates, not merely an assembly, 
but an assembly of believers — '^They that 
believed were baptized, both men and women." 
But faith in God was not a prerequisite to cir- 
cumcision, nor to membership in the Jewish 
commonwealth, nor the ^' Church," the assem- 
bly, congregation '^in the wilderness." Acts 
vii, 38. True faith was not a prerequisite, 
either in the parent or in the child. 

AH the children by Hagar and Keturah, 
as well as by Sarah, were to be circumcised, 
and all their descendants, whether idolaters 
or not, whether regenerate or not. Blood, 
not faith, was the prerequisite. 

There were righteous persons-^converted 
men and women — under the Old Testament 
dispensation, and connected with the Jewish 
commonwealth ; but they were not embodied, 
as such^ to the exclusion of such as were not 



SEED ONE CHRIST. 185 

righteous^ as under the new dispensation. 
There was a race, a national association, in- 
cluding righteous and unrignteous — confess- 
edly such. This association — ^^ assembly" — 
was not a Church in the New Testament sense 
of that word. 

Again : It is claimed '^ we are by faith the 
children of Abraham, and participants in the 
promise ''—" In thy seed shall all the nations 
of the earth be blessed." The ^^seed" here 
referred to was not all the lineal descendants 
of Abraham, nor all the children of those 
parents who haA^e faith like Abraham ; but 
" one/' and that one is Christ. Thus Paul 
says : " He saith not and to seeds, as of many ; 
but as of one, and to thy seed^ which is 
Christ." " So then they that be of faith are 
blessed with faithful Abraham." Gal. iii, 16 
and 9. 

All, of all nations, may be blessed with 
Abraham, and in his seed, Christ; but it is 
not by blood descent, nor the fact that we as 
Gentiles may have believing parents, but that 
we ourselves have a personal faith in Christ, 

That blessings, by association, may come 

13 



186 lydia's household. 

to the children of pious parents, is true; and 
that God may grant additional blessings, in 
answer to prayer of such parents, is true; but 
neither of these is a reason why infant chil- 
dren should be baptized when they are not 
capable of faith in the person in whose name 
they are to be baptized. 

PRECEDENTS— HOUSEHOLD BAPTISMS. 

It is claimed that the household baptisms 
referred to in the New Testament furnish pre- 
cedents for that baptism. 

It is said of Lydia, ^^ And when she was 
baptized and her household, she besought us." 
Acts xvi, 14,15. We ask : 

1. Is there any proof that there were in- 
fants in this household ? Not any. All that 
can be claimed are probabilities. But are 
probabilities sufficient on which to base 'a pos^ 
itive ordinance? Baptism is not like love and 
honesty, duties growing out of our relations 
to God and to one another ; but is a duty arising 
simply out of the positive command of God. It 
is a positive ordinance ; and mere probabilities 
are not a sufficient warrant for the observance 



\ 



lydia's household. 187 

of such an ordinance. There being no au- 
thority for such an observance as infant bap- 
tism, to impose such, is a usurpation of the di- 
vine prerogative, and of fearful consequences. 
Now, let us look at the supposed probabili- 
ties that there were infants in this household. 
Let us ask : 

1. Does every family in your neighborhood 
have infants in it ? Stop and count. Per- 
haps not more than one half the families have. 

2. Let' us notice what is said of Lydia. 
(1.) She was ^^of the city of Thyatira/' 

a city some three hundi*ed miles distant. 

(2.) It is said she was a '^ seller of purple." 
She is spoken of as the head of the firm — no 
intimation of a husband. Now, is it probable 
that a woman who had infants and a husband, 
would be thus far from home, and thus en- 
gaged, and thus spoken of? 

(3.) Prom the fortieth verse of this same 
chapter, we learn that when Paul and Silas 
were released from the prison, " they went to 
the house of Lydia, and when they had seen 
the brethren, they comforted them." They 
could not have comforted infants. 



188 jailer's household. 

The probabilities are that the household of 
Lydia consisted of herself and her employes. 
There is, then, not only no proof that the 
household of Lydia contained infants, but 
even the probabilities are against such an as- 
sumption. 

Another New Testament scripture, relied 
upon as a precedent for infant baptism, is Acts 
xvi, 33. It is there written concerning the 
jailer, " that he was baptized, and all his, 
straightway.'' It is assumed that the proba- 
bilities are, that infants were in the household, 
and that they were baptized by the apostle. 
Again we remark, probabilities are not a suf- 
ficient warrant for a positive ordinance. 

2. Even here, again, the probabilities are 
against infant membership in this household — 
certainly of those baptized ; for, 

(1.) The members of this household were 
capable of understanding the word of the 
Lord, as certainly as the jailer himself. It is 
written, ^^And they [Paul and Silas] spake 
unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that 
were in Ms house!' Verse 32. 

(2.) The members of his household were be- 



POSITIVE CONSIDERATIONS. 189 

lievers. It is written that^ after his baptism, and 
'' all his," that he [the jailer] '^ brought them 
[Paul and Silas] into his house^ and set meat 
before them, and rejoiced, believing in God 
with all his house." Those who were mem- 
bers of his household were not only capable 
of understanding the word of the Lord, but 
were actual helievers — ^^ believed in God with 
all his house." The precedents adduced in 
favor of infant baptism are not clear for its sup- 
port — do not sustain it — are even against it. 
Thus far we have labored simply to show 
the futility of the constructions relied upon 
in support of infant baptism. We now offer 

POSITIVE CONSIDERATIONS AGAINST IT. 

1. The nature of the kingdom to be set 
up, under the new dispensation, by Christ 
and his apostles, was to be a kingdom of 
righteousness (see Dan. ii, 44); ix, 24 ; and 
those who should enter it were to be '' born, 
not of blood, nor of the will of man, nor of the 
flesh, but of God." John i, 13. Hence John 
called upon air to ^^ repent and be baptized." 
Infants were incapable of this repentence. 



190 THE GREAT COMMISSION. 

Again, our Lord declared that '^except a 
man be born of water and of the Spirit he can 
not enter the kingdom of God." The kingdom 
here referred to is the same as that referred 
to by Daniel; also by John and by our Lord, 
when they said, '' Repent, for the kingdom of 
heaven is at hand," — the kingdom now to be 
set up on earth. Are infants capable of 
repentance and capable of the new birth? 
If not, they can not be members of this 
kingdom. 

2. The nature of the great commission 
given by our Lord to his apostles excludes 
infant baptism. 

Our Lord, having been ^^ delivered for our 
offenses and raised again for our justification," 
just before his ascent into heaven, gathered 
together his apostles, and delivered to them 
the great commission — ^^ Go, teach [disciple] 
all nations, baptizing them into the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Spirit : teaching them to observe all things 
whatsoever I have commanded you." Matt, 
xxviii, 19, 20. The word in the first part 
of this commission translated teach^ is a differ- 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 191 

ent word from that which^ in the Litter part 
of the commission, is translated teach ; and 
means not, merely to instruct, but also in- 
cludes the idea of convincing, converting to; 
and the idea maybe expressed thus: ^^Go, 
disciple — make to me converts — enlighten 
them in reference to me as the Messiah, and 
induce them to a personal trust in me as their 
personal Savior; and then baptize them in 
the name of the Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Spirit." Now, are infants capable of 
such instruction, of such conversion, of such 
discipleship ? If not, then they are not proper 
subjects for the baptism ; for this instruction^ 
this discipleship, was to precede, and be a pre- 
requisite to the baptism. 

Then, again, those baptized were to be in- 
structed in the things commanded by Christ. 
Are infants capable of this instruction? 

3. Infant baptism is inconsistent with the 
manifest designs of baptism. 
" (1.) As w^e have seen, baptism was to be a 
profession of repentance — of godly sorrow for 
sin — and to be administered to those who 
were to ^^ bring forth fruits meet for repent- 



192 NEANDER. , 

ance." Infants are incapable of such repent- 
ance or reformation. 

(2.) Baptism was to be a profession of fiiith 
in Christ. Hence the subject was baptized in 
the name of Christ. Can infants exercise 
thisfjiith? Neander says : 

•'Since baptism marked the entrance into com- 
munion with Christ, it resulted from the natwe of 
the rite, that a confession of faith in Jesus as the 
Eedeemer would be made hj the person to be bap- 
tized. As baptism was closely united with a con- 
scious entrance on Christian communion, faith 
and baptism were always connected with one an- 
other, and thus it is in the highest degree probable 
that baptism was performed only in instances 
where both could meet together, and that the 
practice of inf^mt baptism was unknown at that 
period." 

(3.) Baptism was to be 'Hhe answer of a 
good conscience toward God!' Whether we 
consider this answer as the formal response on 
the part of the subject to the demand of God^ 
or merely a sense of approval in having done 
the thing commanded, as a completion of 
public consecration to God, the infant is 
wholly unable to make or have such an 
answer — the end designed. 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 193 

(4). Again: baptism is a "washing away 
of sin." Acts xxii, 16. But, as sin is a 
^itranss:ression of the law," and the infant in- 
capable of transgressing the law, the infant 
has not "sins to be washed away." To the 
infant, baptism is therefore an absurdity. It 
was not until the notion of " inborn sin " arose 
that the practice of infant baptism came into 
use — a practice Avhich arose some two hundred 
years after Christ, and was a device to wash 
away their assumed " inbred sin." For the 
removal of such, infant baptism is yet prac- 
ticed by some denominations. 

Again : baptism is designed to symbolize 
our "death to sin and our resurrection to a 
newness of life." Rom. id, 4. This, infants are 
incapable of conceiving or expressing. In the 
light of every design of baptism, the baptism 
of infants is an absurdity. 

There is yet another absurdity attending in- 
fant baptism. It brings into the Church those 
who are nominally members, and yet are not 
subject to the discipline of the Church, nor 
allowed the advantages of the Church. 

That the baptized infants are claimed as 



194 CHURCH AND THE WORLD. 

members may be seen from the following quo- 
tation from the Confession of Faith of the 
Presbyterian Church : " The visible Church 
consists of all those throughout the world that 
profess the true religion, together with their 
children." (Page 138.) 

These may grow up in the Church, live 
worldly or profanely, and yet not be subject to 
the discipline of the Church. They may grow 
up in the Church, and, though baptized, yet 
not be partakers of the Lord's supper, until 
they profess regeneration of heart. Why be 
allowed the benefit of one ordinance, without 
repentance or faith, and not the other; and 
that, too, when the former is designed to ex- 
press regeneration and faith rather than the 
latter? Also, thousands are thus nominally 
within the Church, and thus far quieted in 
conscience, when yet unconverted and exposed 
to hell — an unfortunate blending of the 
Church and the world. Let us cease to per- 
vert the right ways of the Lord. 

Once more : Infant baptism occasions the 
neglect of a positive personal duty — the per- 



SUPPLANTS PERSONAL DUTY. 195 

sonal profession of repentance and faith by 
baptism. 

The command is, "Repent and be bap- 
tized, every one of you." The baptism is as 
personally enjoined as repentance is — as much 
a personal duty ; and the penitent has no 
more right to neglect the baptism because the 
parent has had the minister to baptize him, 
than he has to neglect prayer because the 
parent has had the minister to pray for him. 
Repentance, prayer, baptism — each and all — 
are personal duties; and we have no more 
right to neglect the one than the other. And 
then we have no right to neglect the honor of 
Christ by this appointed means of professing 
him. We have no right to omit before society 
this voluntary putting on of Christ. We have no 
right to omit the personal good that will come 
to our own souls by a voluntary public con- 
fession of Christ. These are personal duties 
that can not be done by proxy. 

So far, then, as infant baptism prevails, it 
supplants personal duty and the divine order. 
Though devised for supposed good, it is evil. 

Let me say, in conclusion, I know the 



196 TRAIN CHILDREN. 

solicitude of fond parents for their children, 
the desire to be doing something for the sal- 
vation of their children. But let me remind 
them, that, without perverting the divine order, 
they can consecrate their children early, even 
as Hannah did before the child was born; that 
they can so train that child that its first moral 
act shall be for God; that so soon as the child 
shall apprehend the nature of sin, and Jesus 
as a personal Savior, then it may make a pub- 
lic and an intelligent profession of faith in 
Jesus, and be baptized in his name. This can 
be done early in life, sooner far than most 
persons now apprehend. 

There is need of personal instruction here. 
Let me say to those who oppose infant bap- 
tism. Let not your conscience be satisfied with 
combating a manifest error. Whilst our Lord 
came to destroy the works of the devil, he 
came especially to save. Let us endeavor to 
induce children early to seek the Lord, and 
instruct parents how to train their children for 
God. Thus will his kingdom come, and his 
will be done on earth as in heaven. 



INDEX TO TEXTS. 



Daniel, iv, 33 

Ecclesiasticus (Apoch) xxxiv, 25, 

Ezekiel xxxvi, 25, . 

Isaiah iv, 4, . 

Isaiah xxi, 4, . . . . 

Isaiah lii, 15, . . . 

2 Kings V, 10, 14, . 

Leviticus xi, 32, . 

Leviticus xiv, 15, 16, 

Leviticus xvi, 4, 24, . 

Numbers xix, 13-19, 

Numbers xxxi, 23, . 

Acts i, 5, 

Acts ii, 38, .... 

Acts ii, 39, ... . 

Acts ii, 41, .... 

1 -Corinthians i, 13, 

1 Corinthians vii, 14, 

1 Corinthians x, 1, 2, 

1 Corinthians xii, 13, 

1 Corinthians xv, 29, 

Colossians ii, 11, ... 

Galatians iii, 16 and 9, . 

Hebrews ix, 10, . 

John iii, 3, 5, 

John iii, 25, . 

John iv, 14, ... 



PAGFS. 


. 14 


90 


107, 108 


76 


. 88 


110 


. 85 


98, 104 


13 


106 


91 


32,98 


40 


. 54 


74, 181 


. 149 


126 


. 182 


114 


72, 73 


. .138 


. 130 


185 


102 


190 


. 145 


73 



198 



INDEX TO TEXTS, 





PAGES 


John vii, 37, . . . . 


. . . • . 73 


Luke xi, 38, ... 


. . . . 100 


Luke xii, 49, 51, . . . 


. , . . 76 


Mark i, 5, 9, 


. 50,51 


Mark vii, 3, 4, 8, 


... 95 


Matthew iii, 5, . 


. . . 143 


Matthew iii, 11, 


. 40, 51, 75 


Matthew iii, 13-16, 


146 


Matthew xx, 22, 


. 74 


Matthew xxviii, 19, 


. 53, 126, 190 


Eomans vi, 1-4, 


. 53, 117 


1 Peter iii, 21, ... 


78 



p< 



<< 



